Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 06/03/2017 03:50:55
-
Times passes by for any matter in the Universe, but how fast does time pass matter by? One could set a rate and use an equivalent to record the measurement of time! However, one would be by doing this, setting the speed of time by there own equivalents speed/rate.
It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement being used. This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.
added video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3gywYvtls&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3gywYvtls&feature=youtu.be)
added - time is the memory of passed events.
-
How would you measure Time?
-
How would you measure Time?
I prefer the measurement of past time to be that of a mechanical and constant nature, a normal mechanical clock does the job. It is not the question of how we measure time though, it is the importance of understanding time and the realisation of that there is no time dilation, time travel or likes. No past or future and only the present state of matter which ''decays'' in space. Simultaneity is the stuff of fairy tales and easy to prove incorrect. One visual universe whole that visual matter exists in a present state, we measure change of the state of matter, but all the measurements are past measurements, ''time'' passes by at an instant and infinite speed for all matter.
-
But matter will decay at different rates if you take time dilation into account. Imagine the twin paradox with 2 identical coins, one at near lightspeed for a hundred years on a theoretical spacecraft and one on earth waiting for the return of the "twin"
-
But matter will decay at different rates if you take time dilation into account. Imagine the twin paradox with 2 identical coins, one at near lightspeed for a hundred years on a theoretical spacecraft and one on earth waiting for the return of the "twin"
Although matter decays at different rates taking into account ''time'' dilation, the rate of true time is constant, decay does not mean different ages. The twin with the relative slower decay clock, does not age less, they just decay less. and last longer in ''time''. The period of time for both twins is synchronous, but the travelling twin who has decayed less, lives longer.
I will show in simple form
twin 1 time line:____________________________________________________
twin 2 time line:____________________________________________________
twin 1 decay rate:___________________________________________________
twin 2 decay rate:____________________________________
-
The snowman 1 lives longer
added- the twins synchronous of time is shown on the return journey when they both meet up in each others present showing that each twin had spent the exact same amount of time away from each other. But therefore hence the expression, you look young for your age.
added- The returning twin decayed less than the ground state twin had decayed in the same amount of time passed by both twins.
-
I prefer the measurement of past time to be that of a mechanical and constant nature, a normal mechanical clock does the job. It is not the question of how we measure time though, it is the importance of understanding time and the realisation of that there is no time dilation, time travel or likes.
Well it does matter how you measure time. If you believe that a regular clock is sufficient to measure the passage of time, then time dilation has in fact been experimentally proven.
-
Twin1 leaves Earth on a return deep space mission 3000AD travelling 50years by his watch at near SOL. He returns to Earth on his death bed 4000AD Earth Time having lived and aged 50years by his watch. He lived another 100years with medical advances made in the last 1000years that had passed during his absence.
Twin 2 died 3050AD he lived and aged the same 50years as his brother but did not experience the same dilation. His time did not stretch.
Are we on the same page?
-
I prefer the measurement of past time to be that of a mechanical and constant nature, a normal mechanical clock does the job. It is not the question of how we measure time though, it is the importance of understanding time and the realisation of that there is no time dilation, time travel or likes.
Well it does matter how you measure time. If you believe that a regular clock is sufficient to measure the passage of time, then time dilation has in fact been experimentally proven.
The ''speed'' of time is infinite and ''passes'' by all observers simultaneously at an instant. Clear your head Sir of the subjective Dogma.
-
Twin1 leaves Earth on a return deep space mission 3000AD travelling 50years by his watch at near SOL. He returns to Earth on his death bed 4000AD Earth Time having lived and aged 50years by his watch. He lived another 100years with medical advances made in the last 1000years that had passed during his absence.
Twin 2 died 3050AD he lived and aged the same 50years as his brother but did not experience the same dilation. His time did not stretch.
Are we on the same page?
It depends what page we are on, do I understand what you just wrote? well yes of course.
Twin1 leaves Earth on a return deep space mission 3000AD travelling 50years by his watch at near SOL
So twin 1 reaches point B at 3050AD by his watch. you are then going to relate to his watch ticking slower because it really broke which you will deny
Any point me continuing really? frivolous litigation is all that you can offer unless i am misunderstanding your intention and mistakenly going on the defensive
Time is never stretched
The ''speed'' of time is infinite and ''passes'' by all observers simultaneously at an instant. Clear your head Sir of the subjective Dogma.
-
The watch isn't broke and it ticks perfectly hence twin 1 having aged 50years (matter decayed). The paradox is caused by time dilation which is I believe is a proven theory not dogma.
-
The watch isn't broke and it ticks perfectly hence twin 1 having aged 50years (matter decayed). The paradox is caused by time dilation which is I believe is a proven theory not dogma.
NO that is a timing dilation proven, not an actual change in the amount of time passed by both twins. Time does not slow down.
-
Consider this,
twin 1 ground state, time passes by at an instant,
twin 2 in transit state, time passes by at an instant
Any measurement no matter how small of an increment or how fast of a rate after 0 becomes instantaneous history.
-
So do you agree with scenario I gave above?
-
I agree with instant history but the twins had different experiences in history.
-
So do you agree with scenario I gave above?
No of course not unless by ambiguity I am reading it wrongly. All I can say is there is no time dilation for either twin, both twins experience time at a synchronised rate of experiencing time instantly pass them both by.
The clocks in your scenario are recording history, 1 second is one second gone by, the rate you have set is really really slow
-
I agree with instant history but the twins had different experiences in history.
The twins had different geometrical positions and experience in history, but both twins by your own agreement above experience the same amount of time/ passed because the instant rate of time is constant.
-
Its an axiom, people have been arguing against my axiom logic, that is why I know I am correct.
The rate of time is truly without question an instant rate and constant because any measurement after the value 0 no matter how small an increment is instant history.
-
An instant rate yes but different for twin1 and twin2.
-
An instant rate yes but different for twin1 and twin2.
You are mistaken Sir, an instant constant rate cannot be different , if I experience time passing me by at a constant instant rate and you experience time passing you by at an constant instant rate, our rates of time are equal in any sense and every sense. There can not be any dilation of instantaneous, there is no length between 0 and instant to dilate. Instant is adjoined to 0 and ''travels'' at an infinite speed.
-
So you are disagreeing with Time dilation, there is no Twin Paradox?
-
So you are disagreeing with Time dilation, there is no Twin Paradox?
That is correct, there is no time dilation, the twin in transit ages the same as the Twin at ground state.
-
Premise
Time passes by at an instant and constant rate for all observers proven by the axiom logic of that any measurement after the value 0 no matter how small of an increment or how fast of a rate of measurement becomes instantaneous history.
added- it also shows simultaneity is not true.
-
I think you are in a minority in your belief, that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.
'As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress. '
J. Robert Oppenheimer
Thank you for the discussion Sir, I bid you good day.
-
I think you are in a minority in your belief, that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.
'As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress. '
J. Robert Oppenheimer
Thank you for the discussion Sir, I bid you good day.
I thank you for your discussion Sir, I may be a minority but the truth is unarguable and in time will be accepted worldwide and a new true reality will be written.
Good day Sir.
-
Why are my posts so ignored when they are so correct?
I do not understand why ''you'' ignore them.
-
You all think we presently measure time the top way in my diagram but in reality we measure time the bottom way in my diagram.
-
added diagram - don't ''you'' think it is about time you gave me a break? I put in loads and loads of effort.
-
It seems to be a commonly held misconception, as for instance in the case of the twin paradox, that time and the speed of light are synonymous. But looked at logically it really does not make sense that anything moving faster than light will also necessarily break the time barrier. All that would surely happen is that events would take place so fast that we would not be able to see them, it does not follow that once the speed of light is exceeded an automatic movement forward through time results. The suggestion that if the earth were circled from east to west at the speed of light time travel into the past would result is surely pure hyperbole and science fiction.
No! The only possible way in which time and light could be made synonymous is IF light were travelling through a medium. Since any transport of energy through a medium necessarily means that the speed of the energy transport would only be restricted by the properties of the medium. In the case of the light travelling through a medium, the medium itself represents time. Nothing can travel faster. If the speed of light through the medium is exceeded then it would mean that the medium and thus the fabric governing time has itself been compromised and the time barrier would have been broken.
Looked at from another point of view IF light travels through a medium at a constant speed, it is traveling at a constant speed because of the properties of the medium. The medium would then govern causality and determine how and in what order events take place. Obviously if light is the speed limit of the Universe, that speed limit is solely governed by the properties of the medium through which the light is propagating, in this case the speed of light and the time barrier become synonymous, if one is broken then so is the other.
-
It seems to be a commonly held misconception, as for instance in the case of the twin paradox, that time and the speed of light are synonymous. But looked at logically it really does not make sense that anything moving faster than light will also necessarily break the time barrier. All that would surely happen is that events would take place so fast that we would not be able to see them, it does not follow that once the speed of light is exceeded an automatic movement forward through time results. The suggestion that if the earth were circled from east to west at the speed of light time travel into the past would result is surely pure hyperbole and science fiction.
Yes indeed time travel is pure science fiction and an impossibility.
No! The only possible way in which time and light could be made synonymous is IF light were travelling through a medium. Since any transport of energy through a medium necessarily means that the speed of the energy transport would only be restricted by the properties of the medium. In the case of the light travelling through a medium, the medium itself represents time. Nothing can travel faster. If the speed of light through the medium is exceeded then it would mean that the medium and thus the fabric governing time has itself been compromised and the time barrier would have been broken.
Looked at from another point of view IF light travels through a medium at a constant speed, it is traveling at a constant speed because of the properties of the medium. The medium would then govern causality and determine how and in what order events take place. Obviously if light is the speed limit of the Universe, that speed limit is solely governed by the properties of the medium through which the light is propagating, in this case the speed of light and the time barrier become synonymous, if one is broken then so is the other.
Time and light would be impossible to be synchronous, no matter how fast or slow something travels , time always passes that something by instantaneous.
An object is relatively ''stationary'' : time passes by at an instant
An object travels slowly: time passes by at an instant
An object travels at the near speed of light: time passes by at an instant
Mediums, velocities etc, have no affect on the instant rate of time passing by for all observers.
Speed limits are defined by our manufactured rate of time we presently use.
-
Thebox: Time and light would be impossible to be synchronous, no matter how fast or slow something travels , time always passes that something by instantaneous.
Hold on for a second and let us think this through. The fact that we live in a physical Universe, one that can be measured and quantified, means that time itself is quantifiable and not the absolute abstraction that you seem to imply. Suspend for a moment all thoughts on whether a thing is possible or not. If an electromagnetic type of aether exists that came into existence at the time of the big bang and pervades the whole Universe, it clearly explains why the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The propagation of light then becomes an ordinary everyday occurence just like the propagation of any other wave. This interpretation does in fact explain why the speed of light changes when it enters a different medium. However, light or electromagnetic radiation is not an ordinary form of matter it is distinguished by the fact that nothing can travel faster, it is the ultimate speed limit prevailing throughout the Universe. Yet, light possesses this special property specifically due to the fact that it is travelling through a medium. Therefore the medium through which light is travelling takes on the guise of the very fabric of space.
If this view of the Universe is accepted things begin to make sense. If the medium, substance or aether through which light is travelling is indeed the fabric of space, then it is responsible for all causality in the Universe, without it all time disappears and only chaos exists. There is no, here, there or where, there, is no now, no then and no when, no past,no present and no future, everything exists simultaneously. No sentient being can exist in these conditions and it is the only instance where time and the speed of light would therefore be synonymous. What this amounts to saying is that it is the electromagnetic aether that presents the Universe to us in the form in which we see it, namely a Universe where time has a specific direction, without it massive objects could instantaneously travel from A to B presenting a scenario where neither A nor B has an existence.
Thebox: An object is relatively ''stationary'' : time passes by at an instant
Only because no object with mass can possibly reach anything near the speed of light. In these circumstances , time has a definite duration and direction.
Thebox: An object travels slowly: time passes by at an instant.
The same logic applies as for the last point.
Thebox: An object travels at the near speed of light: time passes by at an instant
Mediums, velocities etc, have no affect on the instant rate of time passing by for all observers.
Speed limits are defined by our manufactured rate of time we presently use.
True time as is constantly demonstrated in our lives, passes slower or faster depending on the circumstances.
-
No object with mass can possibly reach anything near the speed of light.
The above statement begins to make sense IF an aether exists AND if that aether governs our visualization of time as something that progresses in a unidirectional manner. If this is true then obviously nothing should be able to go faster than light without destroying the very notion of time.
-
Very good!!!
-
The time is a clock, like a quartz for a computer, it is a reference. Like a voltage can be a reference.
-
As LB7 perceptively points out in post #33, "time" can only be a reference. It's not an independent "thing" existing in its own right.
As a comparable example, consider the word "distance". Is it a distinct "thing" ? Or just a reference for the separation between entities.
Suppose you say, there's a distance of 193 kilometres between London and Manchester. Does that mean there's an actual "thing", an entity, which can always be called "distance"?
-
As LB7 perceptively points out in post #33, "time" can only be a reference. It's not an independent "thing" existing in its own right.
As a comparable example, consider the word "distance". Is it a distinct "thing" ? Or just a reference for the separation between entities.
Suppose you say, there's a distance of 193 kilometres between London and Manchester. Does that mean there's an actual "thing", an entity, which can always be called "distance"?
Indeed there is an entity that we can always call distance, the entity being space. Space is the divider between masses, we call this space a distance or length. However time is an independent thing and absolute. Time is a reference but you may not recognise or realise that the time reference frame is the background to the foreground. The foreground being matter in motion relative to the ''situate'' background of space.
-
The time is a clock, like a quartz for a computer, it is a reference. Like a voltage can be a reference.
Would you suggest a clock , the clocks workings and the clocks motion, do not exist in time?
-
Thebox: Time and light would be impossible to be synchronous, no matter how fast or slow something travels , time always passes that something by instantaneous.
Hold on for a second and let us think this through. The fact that we live in a physical Universe, one that can be measured and quantified, means that time itself is quantifiable and not the absolute abstraction that you seem to imply. Suspend for a moment all thoughts on whether a thing is possible or not. If an electromagnetic type of aether exists that came into existence at the time of the big bang and pervades the whole Universe, it clearly explains why the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The propagation of light then becomes an ordinary everyday occurence just like the propagation of any other wave. This interpretation does in fact explain why the speed of light changes when it enters a different medium. However, light or electromagnetic radiation is not an ordinary form of matter it is distinguished by the fact that nothing can travel faster, it is the ultimate speed limit prevailing throughout the Universe. Yet, light possesses this special property specifically due to the fact that it is travelling through a medium. Therefore the medium through which light is travelling takes on the guise of the very fabric of space.
If this view of the Universe is accepted things begin to make sense. If the medium, substance or aether through which light is travelling is indeed the fabric of space, then it is responsible for all causality in the Universe, without it all time disappears and only chaos exists. There is no, here, there or where, there, is no now, no then and no when, no past,no present and no future, everything exists simultaneously. No sentient being can exist in these conditions and it is the only instance where time and the speed of light would therefore be synonymous. What this amounts to saying is that it is the electromagnetic aether that presents the Universe to us in the form in which we see it, namely a Universe where time has a specific direction, without it massive objects could instantaneously travel from A to B presenting a scenario where neither A nor B has an existence.
Thebox: An object is relatively ''stationary'' : time passes by at an instant
Only because no object with mass can possibly reach anything near the speed of light. In these circumstances , time has a definite duration and direction.
Thebox: An object travels slowly: time passes by at an instant.
The same logic applies as for the last point.
Thebox: An object travels at the near speed of light: time passes by at an instant
Mediums, velocities etc, have no affect on the instant rate of time passing by for all observers.
Speed limits are defined by our manufactured rate of time we presently use.
True time as is constantly demonstrated in our lives, passes slower or faster depending on the circumstances.
Time does not pass slower or faster depending on circumstances, time passes all observers by instantaneously , The proof is in that any measurement of time after the value 0 becomes instantaneous history. Do you wish to try and discourse the statement? I think you will find that my axiom is unarguable and anything you could possibly say cannot change this very fact which over rules any of the Dogma about time dilation.
-
Consider this, the entire length of the frequency is in the present.
-
I can't quite see what you're getting at. I mean when a composer uses standard musical notation, he or she can write a sustained musical note, lasting perhaps several seconds, on paper by a single symbol.
This written symbol can be read by eye, in a split-second. The musical note takes longer to play. There's no necessary time correlation between the two.
Therefore I don't yet understand the point of your diagram, and will grateful for clarification, thanks!
-
Thebox: Any point me continuing really? frivolous litigation is all that you can offer unless I am misunderstanding your intention and mistakenly going on the defensive. Time is never stretched
Demolitiondaley:I think you are in a minority in your belief, that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.
'As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress. '
J. Robert Oppenheimer
In this case I agree unequivocally with Thebox even though the majority believes otherwise. It is indeed an extremely frivolous and ridiculous argument very similar to the kindergarten, " yes it can, no it can't sort". The assertion that the time taken for light to travel a distance from A to B is the same as the time taken for the light to travel from A to B and back to A again, unsupported as it is by the slightest shred of proof is ridiculous in the extreme. It would be another thing altogether if a clock placed at A and one placed at B did in fact indicate that the time taken for light to travel from A to B was the same as that taken for the light to travel from A to B and back to A again. If that was the case yes all kinds of conjectures could be made about time dilation and the expansion and contraction of space. As things stand, keeping the speed of light constant and making both space and time variable is utterly ridiculous, you could do anything you wanted and still get the answer that was required. It is the ultimate tool with which to solve anything, including gravity and whatever other problems might crop up. It is amazing that this fact does not seem to enter into the calculations of people who constantly harp on the Twin paradox and travelling from east to west in order to reverse time! Think for your self for a change.
zx16: Suppose you say, there's a distance of 193 kilometres between London and Manchester. Does that mean there's an actual "thing", an entity, which can always be called "distance"?
An aether that exists throughout the Universe would automatically provide such a reference and also negate much of special relativity.
What I am doing is only returning to the point of departure when all of these esoteric theories came into being and to examine whether alternatives more in keeping with classical physics exist. Very feasible alternative do exist that are completely in keeping with classical physics.
Further to spare Thebox any rebuttal I will also state that apart from the above point there is nothing much we agree on.
-
The time is a clock, like a quartz for a computer, it is a reference. Like a voltage can be a reference.
Would you suggest a clock , the clocks workings and the clocks motion, do not exist in time?
The clock exist, the time not. What we called time is the frequency of a clock. Each tick of the clock allows a window of modification of the "thing". I called "thing" because it is something like a "particle" but it is not, it is more basic and control the characteristics of all particles. Change the velocity of translation and you change the clock (what others people called relativity). It is easy to understand how the clock works: the "live" of a basic "thing": the rotation. The "thing" rotates and the "thing" is like a point that moves at 'c' (speed of light), and each round of the thing can allow all characteristics to operate. When an atom moves in translation more and more, to reach 'c', the thing needs more and more time to make its turn and the characteristic of all particles, atoms, and at final our body seems the time is slowing. It is like our body (program) can change only when there is a tick of the clock, exactly like a program change when the processor receives a tick of the clock from the motherboard.
-
I can't quite see what you're getting at. I mean when a composer uses standard musical notation, he or she can write a sustained musical note, lasting perhaps several seconds, on paper by a single symbol.
This written symbol can be read by eye, in a split-second. The musical note takes longer to play. There's no necessary time correlation between the two.
Therefore I don't yet understand the point of your diagram, and will grateful for clarification, thanks!
The diagram is quite easy to understand although I did draw it.
In trying to help you understand it try this exercise, take a pen or pencil and place the tip on a piece of paper not moving the pencil, under the tip is now a dot on the paper but in ''stationary'' position,
Time passes by synchronous for you and the dot , passing you by instantly.
Now move the pen or pencil to the right producing a line, while the pen or pencil is in motion at any rate, time passes by for you and the line instantly and synchronous.
Notice that why the pen or pencil is moving producing the line, at any given point of the line, the line always remains synchronous in time with you and the entirety of the line or initial starting point is always in the present with you.
So on completion of the line, the time passed by is now already in the past but the line you have done remains in the present .
So now just consider 1 second.
0t____________________________1's
The entirety of the line is in the present and the 1 second being represented is in the past. and does not exist as time anymore, there is no length to contract because the length is not there, it as past.
-
Thebox: Any point me continuing really? frivolous litigation is all that you can offer unless I am misunderstanding your intention and mistakenly going on the defensive. Time is never stretched
Demolitiondaley:I think you are in a minority in your belief, that doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong.
'As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress. '
J. Robert Oppenheimer
In this case I agree unequivocally with Thebox even though the majority believes otherwise. It is indeed an extremely frivolous and ridiculous argument very similar to the kindergarten, " yes it can, no it can't sort". The assertion that the time taken for light to travel a distance from A to B is the same as the time taken for the light to travel from A to B and back to A again, unsupported as it is by the slightest shred of proof is ridiculous in the extreme. It would be another thing altogether if a clock placed at A and one placed at B did in fact indicate that the time taken for light to travel from A to B was the same as that taken for the light to travel from A to B and back to A again. If that was the case yes all kinds of conjectures could be made about time dilation and the expansion and contraction of space. As things stand, keeping the speed of light constant and making both space and time variable is utterly ridiculous, you could do anything you wanted and still get the answer that was required. It is the ultimate tool with which to solve anything, including gravity and whatever other problems might crop up. It is amazing that this fact does not seem to enter into the calculations of people who constantly harp on the Twin paradox and travelling from east to west in order to reverse time! Think for your self for a change.
zx16: Suppose you say, there's a distance of 193 kilometres between London and Manchester. Does that mean there's an actual "thing", an entity, which can always be called "distance"?
An aether that exists throughout the Universe would automatically provide such a reference and also negate much of special relativity.
What I am doing is only returning to the point of departure when all of these esoteric theories came into being and to examine whether alternatives more in keeping with classical physics exist. Very feasible alternative do exist that are completely in keeping with classical physics.
Further to spare Thebox any rebuttal I will also state that apart from the above point there is nothing much we agree on.
Thank you Mcqueen for understanding and having a good mind.
-
The clock exist, the time not. What we called time is the frequency of a clock. Each tick of the clock allows a window of modification of the "thing". I called "thing" because it is something like a "particle" but it is not, it is more basic and control the characteristics of all particles. Change the velocity of translation and you change the clock (what others people called relativity). It is easy to understand how the clock works: the "live" of a basic "thing": the rotation. The "thing" rotates and the "thing" is like a point that moves at 'c' (speed of light), and each round of the thing can allow all characteristics to operate. When an atom moves in translation more and more, to reach 'c', the thing needs more and more time to make its turn and the characteristic of all particles, atoms, and at final our body seems the time is slowing. It is like our body (program) can change only when there is a tick of the clock, exactly like a program change when the processor receives a tick of the clock from the motherboard.
What you call time is a clock but what you call time is actually timing , giving time physical representation where as time has no physicality.
-
Premise
Time passes by at an instant and constant rate for all observers proven by the axiom logic of that any measurement after the value 0 no matter how small of an increment or how fast of a rate of measurement becomes instantaneous history.
added- it also shows simultaneity is not true.
My premise is an axiom and I challenge anybody to discourse the premise and try to prove it is not an axiom.
-
What you call time is a clock but what you call time is actually timing , giving time physical representation where as time has no physicality.
Time don't exist. The tick is a round. But it is possible to compare 2 clocks. We think time like a macroscopic "sensation". At least, the round must exist to have the "macroscopic" time and there is a limit: 'c' that the "thing" can't move faster. I don't say it is not possible to move faster than 'c' but a standard 'thing' can't. And I don't say the true time don't exist, not our sensation of time but something else and it is not what we called 'time'.
-
What you call time is a clock but what you call time is actually timing , giving time physical representation where as time has no physicality.
Time don't exist. The tick is a round. But it is possible to compare 2 clocks. We think time like a macroscopic "sensation". At least, the round must exist to have the "macroscopic" time and there is a limit: 'c' that the "thing" can't move faster. I don't say it is not possible to move faster than 'c' but a standard 'thing' can't. And I don't say the true time don't exist, not our sensation of time but something else and it is not what we called 'time'.
Time does exist but not in a way of normal thinking about time. Time is not a single dimension or a straight line, time is the whole human mind experience that experiences the whole of space in a present state that changes from one instant to the next instant.
-
Defining time: Time is the observation of change from one instant to the next.
or
defining time : Time is the observation of the instant change of the present state of matter.
-
Time does exist but not in a way of normal thinking about time. Time is not a single dimension or a straight line, time is the whole mind experience that experiences the whole of space in a present state that changes from one instant to the next instant.
Not necessary, maybe time does not exist at all. I can't affirm real time exist or not. To take a representation of the different times in Universe, take all computers on Earth, big and small, embedded card, etc, => each processor works at its own velocity: it is the time we know.
-
Not necessary, maybe time does not exist at all. I can't affirm real time exist or not. To take a representation of the different times in Universe, take all computers on Earth, big and small, embedded card, etc, => each processor works at its own velocity: it is the time we know.
You are correct in that time may not exist at all, the present state of matter may or may not change, the present state of matter which we observe has no future state until the present passes the future making a past state memory for comparison. Simply put the future might not even be ahead of us and the future could be some sort of ''self-writing program'' although I do not personally believe that and in any sort of holographic universe.
Things such as computers work at their own ''velocities''. However frequencies and wave-lengths always occupy the present. In simple terms the ''stuff'' travelling between points is always in the present and the velocity of that ''stuff'' has no affect on the present.
-
However frequencies and wave-lengths always occupy the present.
I don't understand
Simply put the future might not even be ahead of us and the future could be some sort of ''self-writing program'' although I do not personally believe that and in any sort of holographic universe.
What we called the future is the program modified (and all programs around). See like that, I 'm not sure it is possible to go back in past. But maybe, there is a real time, or maybe it is possible to hack the program of the Universe itself and restart at a point of time.
-
I don't understand
Have you ever played Monopoly?
Consider you can't pass go without creating a length, you also can't pass go without the length behind you being history. It is a bit like that with time, you can't pass the present without it being the past, you can't make a forward length, it does not exist until the present moves ''forward''.
So if you now consider the Caesium cycles that travel a distance from A to B, Between A and B is in the present.
0 is the caesium and . is the output
0....................................
The above is in the present .
added- that didn't look right so
output........................detect
added- what science does with time dilation is make that future length that does not exist,
__________________________________1.s
______________________1.s
Both these lines exist in the present.
-
the box -Times passes by for any matter in the Universe, but how fast does time pass matter by? One could set a rate and use an equivalent to record the measurement of time! However, one would be by doing this, setting the speed of time by there own equivalents speed/rate.
It is interesting that any measurement after 0 becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement being used. This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.
I don't know why they ignore me either box. I adjust my aluminum hat to keep out the government mind control and everything.
So lets discuss energy as the motion of time. You seem to agree that motion from one instant to another measures time as the movement of the clock. I would suggest the clock measures energy of a frame and time is indistinguishable from that energy being used to move the electron.
You do not believe in dilation of time but can you understand dilation of energy? The zero point energy state of space having more or less dense energy as the presence of mass changes. Actually the more mass the less dense energy spinning electrons through space. Conservation of energy per volume of space to move the electrons. As the volume of mass increases the fundamental energy of space to move electrons dilate to less energy per volume of space. This is the basis of GR. The mass expands because the energy expands allowing the electron to travel further out into space reducing the cycle tick rate do to the increased electron travel distance. Reaction rates are based on electron cycle distance per cycle we measure as time. So in reality we measure the available energy density of space with a clock. The density of energy in space is the greatest the further away from mass. This is the GR explanation of dilation of energy.
The SR explanation is also about distance of the electron travel through space. The physical and light clock ticks at the same rate when in the same frame. This is the equivalence between electron cycle and light distance traveled being confounded in every frame.
Lets look at half the speed of light vs. being at relative rest. With vector velocity the mirrors in a light clock can never be perpendicular for light to travel between them. Different speeds create different angles because light is independent of the source. At half the speed of light a 30,60,90 triangle is created and light follows the hypotenuse. Cos 30 = 0.866 so the distance traveled down the hypotenuse is 13.4% slower than down a perpendicular leg. Now if you look up the Lorentz contraction for half the speed of light you will find the same 0.866. The length contraction is light being independent of the source so you view everything at 30 degrees when traveling at half the speed of light. The contraction is visual in SR and not physical.
The most amazing part is GR dilation is equivalent to SR view of the meter stick. Your meter stick looks longer when you are in the velocity frame of SR. Your measuring stick is physically longer in the GR frame as equivalence.
Its all due to energy c ratio of a frame.
-
GoC: You do not believe in dilation of time but can you understand dilation of energy? The zero point energy state of space having more or less dense energy as the presence of mass changes. Actually the more mass the less dense energy spinning electrons through space. Conservation of energy per volume of space to move the electrons. As the volume of mass increases the fundamental energy of space to move electrons dilate to less energy per volume of space. This is the basis of GR. The mass expands because the energy expands allowing the electron to travel further out into space reducing the cycle tick rate do to the increased electron travel distance. Reaction rates are based on electron cycle distance per cycle we measure as time.
I am getting pretty mixed up reading this. For instance what part of physics exactly does the phrase: " the more mass the less dense energy spinning electrons through space..." refer to ? Maybe it is time to return to basics. The virtual transition of an electron from E 2 to E1 and back ( the transition E 2 -> E1 ->E 2) can be considered as a process in which an electron absorbs and emits a photon of energy (E 2 - E1). Such a photon is called virtual. In contrast to the photons present in real transitions virtual photons cannot be observed experimentally. The creation of a virtual photon is not connected with an absorption of energy from outside and its annihilation is not connected with a release of energy. The Law of the conservation of energy is not violated since a virtual photon exists for a very short time (< 10 -15 seconds.). This is the process involved in the zero point energy of space. Obviously it is not possible to superimpose such transitions onto a whole theory governing the working of the Universe as it seems to me your post implies. As to your reference to frames of reference, GR and SR, my earlier objections stating that such different frames of reference would not be required in the presence of a universal aether that permeates the entire Universe still stand.
-
but can you understand dilation of energy?
Is this a new concept ? as I have never encountered this in my self study.
What do you mean by dilation of energy?
Are you sure you don't mean a change of state of entropy (S)?
-
GoC: You do not believe in dilation of time but can you understand dilation of energy? The zero point energy state of space having more or less dense energy as the presence of mass changes. Actually the more mass the less dense energy spinning electrons through space. Conservation of energy per volume of space to move the electrons. As the volume of mass increases the fundamental energy of space to move electrons dilate to less energy per volume of space. This is the basis of GR. The mass expands because the energy expands allowing the electron to travel further out into space reducing the cycle tick rate do to the increased electron travel distance. Reaction rates are based on electron cycle distance per cycle we measure as time.
I am getting pretty mixed up reading this. For instance what part of physics exactly does the phrase: " the more mass the less dense energy spinning electrons through space..." refer to ? Maybe it is time to return to basics. The virtual transition of an electron from E 2 to E1 and back ( the transition E 2 -> E1 ->E 2) can be considered as a process in which an electron absorbs and emits a photon of energy (E 2 - E1). Such a photon is called virtual. In contrast to the photons present in real transitions virtual photons cannot be observed experimentally. The creation of a virtual photon is not connected with an absorption of energy from outside and its annihilation is not connected with a release of energy. The Law of the conservation of energy is not violated since a virtual photon exists for a very short time (< 10 -15 seconds.). This is the process involved in the zero point energy of space. Obviously it is not possible to superimpose such transitions onto a whole theory governing the working of the Universe as it seems to me your post implies. As to your reference to frames of reference, GR and SR, my earlier objections stating that such different frames of reference would not be required in the presence of a universal aether that permeates the entire Universe still stand.
Agreed that the post seemed gibberish.
-
McQueen,
You must realize by your own contributions that there is an Ether medium. That is a given or transfer of photons would not be possible. If you look further you then realize that the medium is the photon source. Photons represent pure energy for distance traveled as a second, hour, day or year. The available energy is represented orthogonally as the speed of light. This is what we measure. GR changes the density of energy particles (the medium). Like an ice skater the energy expands to move electrons in space that is the dilation caused by mass. The electrons travel further at rest the more the mass. This is the equivalence to the visual expansion of the ruler caused by vector speed in SR. They are geometrically equivalent as I have been trying to point out using the rules of relativity. I will be back in about 3 hors to explain more. Electrons are moved by energy or magic. Main stream choses the magic of the unknown. Not allowing a matrix of transfer. Physics ratios are the same in every frame.
-
Like any language we have to define our terms as best we can. Time to me is motion caused by energy c of space and not mass. To believe electrons and photons are confounded in every frame. one must follow the logic they are controlled by the same source. Something moves both the electrons and photons. The photons have to b part of energy and propagation wave of that energy always related to electron cycle.
You can follow logic or magic. I prefer logic.
-
However frequencies and wave-lengths always occupy the present.
Does the clock emits a wavelength ? Maybe, but the past is only the list of all variables affected by a value. In the present, the values are not the same and in the future the values are different. Like time does not exist, maybe re-write your question. A good question has a good answer.
Time to me is motion caused by energy c of space and not mass.
Not for me, mass doesn't exist. Energy can be created or destroyed. But time can't be created or destroyed, it is a clock, you can say the clock is at a value.But the internal clock is a motion, and it is internal, in each "particle". The clock is inside the particle and the straight velocity fixed the value of the clock.
-
GoC: You must realize by your own contributions that there is an Ether medium. That is a given or transfer of photons would not be possible. If you look further you then realize that the medium is the photon source.
Get first things right first, if you don't mind me saying so. The aether medium is not and has never been, nor could ever be the source of photons as you claim. The source of photons is the electron which is a charged particle. The electron mediates its energy levels through the absorption or emission of photons, each of which has a specific energy equating to the change in the energy level of the electron. The claim that photons spontaneously appear with no explanation from an aether medium is patently unfeasible and even more telling, pointless. What would such an exercise achieve ?
I think it does you small justice to pontificate about a claim that is blatantly wrong from every point of view. What makes you think that a transfer of photons would not be possible in the presence of an aether medium? In fact if you think about the problem logically the very fact that the speed of light is not infinite is indicative (in the absence of general and special relativity ) of the existence of some kind of medium through which light propagates.
LB7: Not for me, mass doesn't exist. Energy can be created or destroyed. But time can't be created or destroyed, it is a clock, you can say the clock is at a value.
This is certainly a more reasonable view but on the other hand it could be too much of a simplification of a complicated subject.
-
on the other hand it could be too much of a simplification of a complicated subject.
The subject is complicate for now, I think physics is simple, especially the concept, and the theory that can explain more easily something is better (if the concept is not incompatible with the rest of physics). Explain the relativity with the curvature of space is not easy, but I can explain easily with the clocks and the rotation inside the clocks due to the limit of light speed only.
The mass don't exist, it is an attraction followed by a repulsion, the mean is what we called "gravity". The attraction/repulsion changes the clock too, it is like a magnet at distance that try to move faster the "clock-particle" faster than 'c' but it can't in the contrary the attraction can reduce the velocity of the clock-particle in a half round.
-
GoC: You must realize by your own contributions that there is an Ether medium. That is a given or transfer of photons would not be possible. If you look further you then realize that the medium is the photon source.
Get first things right first, if you don't mind me saying so. The aether medium is not and has never been, nor could ever be the source of photons as you claim.
First you need to know what is before you can claim authority of what is not. You might not have the imagination for something but that does not mean it does not exist.
The source of photons is the electron which is a charged particle.
So you have been taught. What does charge mean? Charge represents a potential difference. The electron is about flow. Perpetual flow. How does something have perpetual flow? Something else is giving it perpetual flow (a medium of space). Or magic its your choice. The same perpetual flow controls the photon. What is a photon? A photon slows through air and speed up in a vacuum. Does the electron control that observation? It is the energy of space that is perpetual c.
The electron mediates its energy levels through the absorption or emission of photons, each of which has a specific energy equating to the change in the energy level of the electron.
I would agree the energy level in the space the photon is created determines the wavelength the electron causes by friction of its jump.
The claim that photons spontaneously appear with no explanation from an aether medium is patently unfeasible and even more telling, pointless. What would such an exercise achieve ?
There is no spontaneous appearance. The sea of energy is through out the universe. This is the cause of the dimension of motion we measure as time. The exercise is learning the mechanical cause of relativity.
I think it does you small justice to pontificate about a claim that is blatantly wrong from every point of view. What makes you think that a transfer of photons would not be possible in the presence of an aether medium?
Unless the medium is energy and the propagation wave is c and spin energy is c.
In fact if you think about the problem logically the very fact that the speed of light is not infinite is indicative (in the absence of general and special relativity ) of the existence of some kind of medium through which light propagates.
General and special relativity is because of energy and light measures that energy for distance while clocks measure it by energy available from the sea of energy.
The MMX proved there was no stationary Aether. An Ether medium of vector motion would negate relativity as Einstein suggested. But and this is a big but a spin energy of basically stationary particles at c would cause relativity.
The photon and electron are confounded in every frame. How many notes do you need to name that tune? Motion is confounded, motion is energy and motion is time. Everything moves in the present because motion creates the present.
Be careful about what you consider as impossible. When you think hard enough everything is impossible. Something cannot come from nothing. How did the first something come into existence? That is the only paradox.
-
[/color]GoC:[/font][/size]So you have been taught. What does charge mean? Charge represents a potential difference. The electron is about flow. Perpetual flow. How does something have perpetual flow?
I don't mean to be rude or personal which is the vibe I am getting, if so forget it, nothing personal about it. Excuse me for disagreeing, your statement that charge represents a potential difference, seems to miss out on the fact that something has to be responsible for the potential difference. To state that charge is potential difference or that it represents potential difference is not correct. The proof lies in the details, maybe if the smaller phenomena were explained in greater detail the theory would make more sense. I don't know. At the moment it sounds more like the scenario for a video game. Again no offense meant, I am just being upfront with you.
-
I have very little emotion in this except for logic. I know it sounds like a video game. What moves the electron? When you have that you can claim much more about what is possible and what is not possible. You have a very reasonable mind. I find it a challenge to logic with others for understanding. What causes electron motion. It is not a potential difference if potential can be used for perpetual motion. The potential is not in electrons. It has to come from space energy for the electron and photon to be confounded in every frame. The photon slows and speeds back up from air to a vacuum. Using logic its energy from space controlling each or its magic of the unknown.
You cannot anger me. I am sorry if you feel that way. I want more challenges to my proposal. The more the better. I want to be proven incorrect by logic. Subjective views are all we have. You say charge I say perpetual flow. The potential is a better understanding or questions with no answers. Like what is gravity? What makes the electron move or the photon move. Main stream through away the tools for motion with a misunderstanding of the MMX. Game or no game are you game? A challenge to your understanding is the most difficult to overcome. I may have fallen into that position. Help me get out.
-
I have very little emotion in this except for logic. I know it sounds like a video game. What moves the electron? When you have that you can claim much more about what is possible and what is not possible. You have a very reasonable mind. I find it a challenge to logic with others for understanding. What causes electron motion. It is not a potential difference if potential can be used for perpetual motion. The potential is not in electrons. It has to come from space energy for the electron and photon to be confounded in every frame. The photon slows and speeds back up from air to a vacuum. Using logic its energy from space controlling each or its magic of the unknown.
You cannot anger me. I am sorry if you feel that way. I want more challenges to my proposal. The more the better. I want to be proven incorrect by logic. Subjective views are all we have. You say charge I say perpetual flow. The potential is a better understanding or questions with no answers. Like what is gravity? What makes the electron move or the photon move. Main stream through away the tools for motion with a misunderstanding of the MMX. Game or no game are you game? A challenge to your understanding is the most difficult to overcome. I may have fallen into that position. Help me get out.
What else can I say but I like ?
-
Time is a dimension created by mankind to measure events (becoming processes). The common pace of time is unconjecturable due to the nature of beginning-less and end-less in the cosmos. Conventionally, time is influenced by the respective vibrational frequencies and it can be measured relatively. In a way, the conventional time that we involve ourselves with every day is a subjective cum relative time. This means the time orientation is dependent on the observer to provide the valuation on the other side of the object or matter. As a consequence, the time conclusion varies among different observers.
In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe. It can also be reflected as the endless evolving frequency cum becoming process in the cosmos. We could liken the frequency to space and the becoming process to time because time is actually a dimension (indicator) for the becoming process and space is merely an expression for energy in play as per frequency (i.e. the number of occurrences or observations within a given time period or statistical category).
Space x Time = Frequency x Becoming process
The principle-in-effect: -
A higher vibrational frequency would yield a slower becoming process;
A lower vibrational frequency would yield a faster becoming process
When an object is set under an accelerating motion, the becoming process of the object would be stretched as compared with a relative object that is set under a constant or a decelerating motion. In other words, the becoming process of the object has been slowed down comparatively and not the time that has been dilated or slowed down. Time would only assume the expression that the becoming process has slowed down and not the other way round.
Literally, the slowing down of the becoming process would mean the slowing down of the aging process for a sentient being. This is the correct understanding behind the thought experiment of twin paradox which concerns a twin who flies off in a spaceship traveling near the speed of light and returns to discover that his or her twin sibling has aged much more.
Similarly, the word of time has been used frequently for expressing different scenarios of becoming process, such as follows: -
NO TIME = an expression of no opportunity for a new becoming process to begin.
TIME TO TIME = an expression of moving from the past to the present becoming process; the present to the future becoming process.
TIME PASSED SLOWLY = an expression of hoping for a faster becoming process.
TIME DILATION = an expression that the becoming process slows down.
-
Time is a dimension created by mankind to measure events (becoming processes). The common pace of time is unconjecturable due to the nature of beginning-less and end-less in the cosmos. Conventionally, time is influenced by the respective vibrational frequencies and it can be measured relatively. In a way, the conventional time that we involve ourselves with every day is a subjective cum relative time. This means the time orientation is dependent on the observer to provide the valuation on the other side of the object or matter. As a consequence, the time conclusion varies among different observers.
In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe. It can also be reflected as the endless evolving frequency cum becoming process in the cosmos. We could liken the frequency to space and the becoming process to time because time is actually a dimension (indicator) for the becoming process and space is merely an expression for energy in play as per frequency (i.e. the number of occurrences or observations within a given time period or statistical category).
Space x Time = Frequency x Becoming process
The principle-in-effect: -
A higher vibrational frequency would yield a slower becoming process;
A lower vibrational frequency would yield a faster becoming process
When an object is set under an accelerating motion, the becoming process of the object would be stretched as compared with a relative object that is set under a constant or a decelerating motion. In other words, the becoming process of the object has been slowed down comparatively and not the time that has been dilated or slowed down. Time would only assume the expression that the becoming process has slowed down and not the other way round.
Literally, the slowing down of the becoming process would mean the slowing down of the aging process for a sentient being. This is the correct understanding behind the thought experiment of twin paradox which concerns a twin who flies off in a spaceship traveling near the speed of light and returns to discover that his or her twin sibling has aged much more.
Similarly, the word of time has been used frequently for expressing different scenarios of becoming process, such as follows: -
NO TIME = an expression of no opportunity for a new becoming process to begin.
TIME TO TIME = an expression of moving from the past to the present becoming process; the present to the future becoming process.
TIME PASSED SLOWLY = an expression of hoping for a faster becoming process.
TIME DILATION = an expression that the becoming process slows down.
You seemingly know what you are talking about to a degree of correctness. So in saying that I hope your ''maths'' understanding is as good as your insight ,
0t+t=<0t=history
Plus time always giving a negative result.
-
You have your greater than symbol backwards.
-
You have your greater than symbol backwards.
No, I have the less symbol the correct way around.
-
model:
-
Conclusion: The speed of time is equal to the speed of history
I am going fishing, had enough science last a lifetime, I understand science does not need anti science the same way religion does not want an atheist. I might come back, I might not, but either way I thank this forum for not banning me or being too arrogant.
Good bye.
-
I am quite surprised that this forum is not taking me seriously when I provide axioms but yet they are still ignored.
Tell me straight why I am so ignored?
-
What is the matter fish are not biting there either?
Planks distance divided by planks time = 1. They are two sides of the same coin. Planks time * planks distance = c. Below planks distance is zero by our fractal existence.
-
What is the matter fish are not biting there either?
Planks distance divided by planks time = 1. They are two sides of the same coin. Planks time * planks distance = c. Below planks distance is zero by our fractal existence.
Do you see me ''trolling'' on this forum? I think not.
I have heard of a Plank length, however in reality I have no idea what it is or means. You sometimes talk beyond my ability of knowledge Goc so I do not understand your point(s) at times.
Does what you have said in the above in anyway relate to what I have said?
Have you got any argument you could give why the pace of time is not equal to the pace of history and both being an immediate pace?
I personally can not objectively prove this statement to be false in any way.
-
The joke seemed appropriate for your statement about going fishing. Not intended as a criticism.
Planks length and time speaks to your zero time where below these levels length and time have no understandable meaning.
What you are saying is basically planks time from one length to the next. No revelation. Comparatively our consciousness runs very slowly. Its difficult to define a past time as length of time.
-
The joke seemed appropriate for your statement about going fishing. Not intended as a criticism.
Planks length and time speaks to your zero time where below these levels length and time have no understandable meaning.
What you are saying is basically planks time from one length to the next. No revelation. Comparatively our consciousness runs very slowly. Its difficult to define a past time as length of time.
OK, I will go with Plank time from one length to the next length with no spacing between, being the pace of time. You say that there is no revelation, please now reconsider time dilation if you consider time to be like the mentioned pace rather than a consciousness time pace.
There would be quite clearly an impossibility of time dilation measuring time in this way. Would you agree?
-
It depends on your understanding of time dilation. What does time dilation mean to you? To me its the amount of energy c available in a frame. Clocks measure the available c for total energy used by mass. A BH has no c energy available. The furthest distance from mass has the greatest c energy.
You need to define your terms properly.
-
It depends on your understanding of time dilation. What does time dilation mean to you? To me its the amount of energy c available in a frame. Clocks measure the available c for total energy used by mass. A BH has no c energy available. The furthest distance from mass has the greatest c energy.
You need to define your terms properly.
Your understanding would be close to the truth and in your understanding of time dilation it would be simple to change the word time to timing and then it would be almost perfect and accurate.
Time dilation of your understanding is simple R(S) , which is simply a rate of entropy and not a rate of time although we use the change in entropy rate to measure time.
Added- I did not want to give my ideas away totally but here it is
The present measurement of time
R(t)=R(S)
PROBLEM =R (S) is a variant to begin with.
For those who don't know what (S) means , it means entropy.
R=rate
t=time
-
Maybe a MOd would like to comment now I have added the ''maths''?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Time doe snot
Who's clock should we use?
-
Time doe snot
Who's clock should we use?
One that is an invariant.
-
Ah yes the magic one.
-
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?
-
In which frame? Different dilations have different lengths before it would be recognized as a different position in space. Same for tick rate distances
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
Let me change the question for those who do not understand the question.
At what pace does the present become the past?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
p.s when ''you'' finally accept what I am saying to be the absolute truth, we can then discuss entropy dilation.
-
You are a legend in your own mind.
-
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.
-
You are a legend in your own mind.
I am a nobody in my mind, I noticed you avoid the question.
-
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.
-
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 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The temporal distance from the present to the immediate past is arbitrarily small.
That is what I said, no space to dilate.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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''.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Putting it in easy perspective, you can observe the ''empty'' space in a box or you would not know it was ''empty''.
Observing the wall of the box tells you nothing about the intervening space. Space could be curled up seven ways from Sunday; you'd never know the difference because light follows the curvature of space. The only way to determine if the box is empty is to measure its mass.
-
Putting it in easy perspective, you can observe the ''empty'' space in a box or you would not know it was ''empty''.
Observing the wall of the box tells you nothing about the intervening space. Space could be curled up seven ways from Sunday; you'd never know the difference because light follows the curvature of space. The only way to determine if the box is empty is to measure its mass.
Observing the wall of the box allows you to observe the length of space between you and the wall of the box. For the space can be measured and the wall can be measured to be in exact geometrical position relative to the observer. You do not need your eyes to observe space, motion is proof that space exists between you and the wall of the box.
You can see space because it is not reflecting light, if it were not for this , you would not see things that do reflect light.
-
Light couples the brain to matter, sight is live, remove away the matter and the coupling is broke, hence we see darkness although it is light.
Understand the two twins decide to measure time using a time measure, twin 2 departs with the 0 end in his hand and off he goes into deep space.
The reason they do this is because they both agree they must an equal length apart to return in an equal time tot he present and each other.
Twin two can not be 2016 why twin one is in 2017 because time ran slower for him.
-
Light is just one way to ascertain the location of the wall. Your arm will do just as well. Both of them must follow the curvature of space. Have you read Flatland?
-
Light is just one way to ascertain the location of the wall. Your arm will do just as well. Both of them must follow the curvature of space. Have you read Flatland?
I have not heard of or read Flatland, is it any good?
-
I have not heard of or read Flatland, is it any good?
Very good, well worth a read. You can take it at face value as an interesting view of 4d perspective from a 3D world, or you can, on a different level, see the social comment on those times.
-
Yes your angles can be dangerous.
-
Time propagates to the future, never to repeat itself. Yet clocks, which we use to measure time, are cyclic, which is not how time propagates. The theory of reincarnation is how clock express time, allowing one to return to a rebirth at midnight, each day.
Science is using the wrong tool to measure time, thereby leading to conceptual confusion. The tool needs to reflect the nature of the phenomena and not reflect a different phenomena. Cycling, like clocks do, is closer to wave motion and energy; wavelength, d and frequency, t. Clocks simulate express time and distance; oops!
The topic, the speed of time, is really about expressing time as a composite of distance and time, that has been conceptually biased by the tool choice of the traditions. Clocks were designed with human productivity in mind, allowing us to repeat out tasks in a coordinated way. But that is still not how time propagates except in an artificial way to maximize profits.
Time is better expressed by a mono directional concept, like entropy, instead of a two directional concept like cyclic waves. The entropy of the universe always increases; 2nd law, meaning it propagates, like time, to the future and not also the past. Energy can go both ways as long as it is conserved.
A better clock that reflects the nature of time, would be the dead fish clock. We take a dead fish and measure time based on when it starts to stink. Like the nature of time, the dead fish can only go one way; decay. We can't reverse or un-stink the decaying fish and reuse it tomorrow. The stink does not cycle and repeat like a clock. Each day you will need a new fish, just as time is new each day.
Interestingly, the dead fish clock can be made to run slower, not only with relativity, but it can also be made to run slower via refrigeration. The dead fish clock, conceptually implies an equivalency between heat and relativity. Or relativity has a connection to an energy balance.
Relative reference does not use an energy balance, but is an artifact of the wrong tool; 2-D.
-
Time is solely relevant to the observers position in a gravitational field and relativity to the objects being observed. I've posted a hypothesis potentially explaining the three dimensional reality of space-time fabric that we live in which is enacted upon by four dimensional forces and energy.
-
The dead fish clock is a good analogy for the arrow of time, but the decay process involves atomic oscillations. The level of stinkiness is just a way of counting oscillations.
-
Time is solely relevant to the observers position in a gravitational field and relativity to the objects being observed. I've posted a hypothesis potentially explaining the three dimensional reality of space-time fabric that we live in which is enacted upon by four dimensional forces and energy.
Only if we measured time correctly would that be true. Unfortunately we do not measure time correctly.
-
The dead fish clock is a good analogy for the arrow of time, but the decay process involves atomic oscillations. The level of stinkiness is just a way of counting oscillations.
A dead fish clock, lol,
-
Yes your angles can be dangerous.
A very acute observation. Is it a pointed comment?
Maybe a little obtuse for the current discussion 8)
-
Yes your angles can be dangerous.
A very acute observation. Is it a pointed comment?
Maybe a little obtuse for the current discussion 8)
I did not understand lol
-
After several discussions, my conclusion and I feel a must be...
The rate of time/entropy is at the speed of light. The rate of time being defined by input rather than entropy output. All observers experiences an equal synchronous rate of time/entropy because c is constant. I feel we wrongly consider the output of the Caesium and ignore the synchronous input.
An assumption and speculation would be that time slows down in the dark.
This may sound wack, in gardening, time can be slowed down for the plant by decreasing the light wattage.
Added- I know you like formulas etc, so I suppose I had better put one for time.
Rt=(hf/S)/S
Where R is rate and t is time and hf is high frequency and S is entropy.
I consider the above to be accurately true.
We must also consider that the rate of time is relative to the rate of time of space, which is 0. That is why and how we can measure time, space being the 0 comparative of relativity. Everything is relative to 0.
added note - Space has no entropy and can not hold an entropy, space allows permeate , objects hold energy.
Energy permeates through the S of objects...hmmmm.
more note - space can not be configured in more than one way.
more note - Matter pertains hf , space can not, there is no mechanism to pertain hf. Fields pertain hf...hmmm.
-
Just had this other thought on other forum.
Time is constant, reference frames are the variant.
If m1=m2 and m1S=m2S and m1dx=m2dx then m1Rt=m2Rt because c is constant and the rate of S would always be equal.
-
Time is solely relevant to the observers position in a gravitational field and relativity to the objects being observed. I've posted a hypothesis potentially explaining the three dimensional reality of space-time fabric that we live in which is enacted upon by four dimensional forces and energy.
The way we measure time is based on cyclic clocks, which is not how time behaves and propagates. Time moves forward, never to repeat. This is due to the second law, which requires entropy increase over time. Therefore even if we return to the place we were born, we don't cycle as a new child, like a clock at midnight. Time, in this special case, would be more like a helix, seen from above, where the z-axis can't be seen. The change in z prevents us from being reincarnated like clock time.
Cyclic events, like a wave clock, require two dimensions to be fully expressed; distance and time. What that means is all the functions of time F(t), we use in all science equations, actually express time, with space-time (d,t) and not just time. This is an implied, but a never spoken assumption, based on how we measure time. The idea of the speed of time is a good intuition of this unspoken affect, since time is being express as F(d/t); speed. This may be taboo to say but this is naked science.
The reason this is so, is because we measure the material objects of the universe, indirectly, based on their emitted and/or reflected energy. Science uses an energy middleman to speak for the main man. When we look at the sun, what reaches our eyes or our telescope is the energy that the sun gave off, minutes before. We do not directly measure the sun by its matter. The solar wind moves much slower than energy and sort of limits us to the surface of the sun. The energy can tell us things of the core.
The net effect is we infer the state matter, from its energy signal. This 2-D (space-time dependent) energy middleman is where all the problems of simultaneity and reference, appear. Energy is relative to observational reference, while mass is an invariant. We try to infer an invariant using a relative variant.
For example, when a hydrogen atoms lowers potential and gives off a quanta of energy, this quantum can blue or red shift based on relative motion and GR. However, the hydrogen atoms remains the same hydrogen no matter what your reference is. The law of physics do not change with reference. We cannot turn that hydrogen into helium simply by us moving or using a clever reference. Matter can act simultaneously, but the energy we use to infer, has relative reference limitations. This, I believe, is what Einstein really meant; reference is relative for energy inference, but laws are the same for matter.
The dead fish clock is different from the traditional wave clock because it measures entropy, which is a state variable, connected to a particular state of matter. This is the original definition of entropy and should not be confused with cyclic clock definitions.
The stink of the dead fish clock is connected to the concentration of odor particles that reach our nose. This is not connected to energy waves. Waves are secondary to the chemical particles. This clock requires a more direct connection to matter. It uses a different sense; smell, rather than the eyes, and therefore measures matter instead of energy. It is based on chemicals binding to enzymes with lock and key precision.This causes a secondary energy signal to the brain. The number of molecules, a fish clock can give off at time=t is an invariant.
The entropy clock is based on entropy, which is a state variable, the value of which is dependent on the state of the matter. For entropy to increase, matter needs to absorb energy/heat. This is why the time, as expressed by the entropy clock, will change based on whether it is hot or cold; level of energy. Entropy, in many ways, is a bridge concept between matter and energy, since the entree change of matter needs the absorption of heat or energy.
In that sense, the dead fish clock, by being a bridge between matter and energy, defines t as F(d,t,t), instead of F(d,t) used by cyclic wave clocks, based on waves and energy. It is connected to acceleration, instead of velocity based on dimensional analysis. This is still not pure time, but is 66% time instead of 50%. It is an upgrade, but it also adds complexity to the analysis.
In other words, matter is influenced by the forces of nature, which create acceleration in matter. Energy appears as a side affect of the forces acting upon matter; hydrogen atom lowering energy levels. The forces of nature helps to define which states of matter are possible, and therefore helps to define the quantized limits of entropy, that go hand in hand with the emitted quanta of energy, which appear as matter changes state.
If you wish to go all the way to a function of pure time, while also lowering the complexity, you need to leave the limitations of inertial reference, and use the speed of light as the ground state. It may be easier, to use the entropy clock bridge, first so you can see the other side from a distance.
-
The entropy clock is ultimately based on reciprocal motion. Entropy represents the number of possible configurations of microscopic objects in a macroscopic system. The rate of change of entropy is inversely proportional to temperature (or rather temperature gradient.) Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the microscopic objects as they bounce around inside the macroscopic system. The bouncing is tantamount to reciprocal motion for the purposes of time keeping. The reason why an entropy clock like the dead fish is irreversible is that it radiates energy (and information.)
-
page 3
questionable quotes:
I agree there is no absolute reference frame.
The emission of light could define an absolute frame since events don't move, but it leaves no marker to serve as a reference. The cmb has been suggested as such.
/the speed of time is one second per second
that is not a definition, it's a tautology, and the worst type, without even comparing two different but similar words, along with "it is what it is" and "when they're gone they're gone".
/Einstein suggested all views are equally valid. Interestingly enough this allows that no view is valid.
valid relative to the frame where the view originates.
/The measured speed of light is unambiguous. The distance measured is ambiguous.
After looking up "ambiguous" and finding these definitions,
1. having more than one meaning: having more than one possible meaning or interpretation
an ambiguous response
2. causing uncertainty: causing uncertainty or confusion
an ambiguous result
it shouldn't apply to any measurement, unless someone suspects an error.
/Putting it in easy perspective, you can observe the ''empty'' space in a box or you would not know it was ''empty''.
It's not empty, but full of air!
/ Light couples the brain to matter, sight is live, remove away the matter and the coupling is broke, hence we see darkness although it is light.
to see: the awareness of the mind of the extended world beyond the mind through processing sensory data in the form of light.
/Twin two can not be 2016 why twin one is in 2017 because time ran slower for him.
They will return to the same location, but their clocks will have accumulated different quantities of ticks, because the faster a clock moves, the slower it counts ticks.
/Time propagates to the future, never to repeat itself. Yet clocks, which we use to measure time, are cyclic, which is not how time propagates. The theory of
reincarnation is how clock express time, allowing one to return to a rebirth at midnight, each day.
Clocks count clock events (ticks), which serves as a standard for recording events of interest. Just as in math, cycles in counting are practical and convenient. Without place values, the symbol set would have to expand for large values. Eg. hexadecimal requires six additional symbols to the base ten system. A clock still accumulates intervals from seconds,..., to years. There are cycles but the accumulation is unidirectional.
Midnight repeats but it's a new day.
/ The entropy of the universe always increases;
Not while there are organizing processes like plant, animal, and human growth, star and galaxy formation, volcanic land formation.
-
"but it leaves no marker to serve as a reference"
If I'm right, there is a reference, if there is a symmetrical rotation of the time-particle then the time is the speed of light. And it is possible to measure the absolute velocity (translation), for that, measure the deformation of the rotation of the time-particle.
-
One second per second is not a tautology because my seconds are not necessarily the same as yours. The speed of my clock from your perspective is the ratio of my second to your second. That's the easy part of (special) relativity. The mind bender is that, if you perceive my seconds to be shorter than yours, I must perceive your seconds to be shorter than mine. Until you get your head around that concept, you will be lost in space.
-
One second per second is not a tautology because my seconds are not necessarily the same as yours. The speed of my clock from your perspective is the ratio of my second to your second. That's the easy part of (special) relativity. The mind bender is that, if you perceive my seconds to be shorter than yours, I must perceive your seconds to be shorter than mine. Until you get your head around that concept, you will be lost in space.
I will say one sentence to help you understand.
Your smallest measurement of distance and time elapsed can only ever be equal to my smallest measurement of distance and time elapsed no matter where we are relative to each other in the Universe.
-
This is my new theory...
A chronon is the length of time it takes one quantum of energy to push one electron from one electronic orbit to the next.
Time is measured by the chronon in this 3rd dimensional reality and I will try to explain this the best way I can.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I am not a mathematician so please bear with me...
How I see that space-time really works is this...
Every second that you live your life, is like a radio frequency..
say at your birth the frequency was 1.00001 on the dial. At age 1 day, the frequency is now 103,680.00001 (in seconds)
× 365 = 37,843,200.00001 (seconds) on the dial and every second of each and every moment and there are even more slices of time-frequencies in between those milliseconds as well such as 365000.45332455554333999
etc... each millisecond has its own slice of time frequency that stands still and we continue the moving picture stills or "pages" of time slices.
Each and every number is a time-slice or frequency of that moment.
The very day you were born still exists as a frequency set to 1.00001 (if that was also the beginning of all time) and you can go back there by setting the frequency to that time.
In reality, time would be in the range of septillionths since the big bang would be considered the 0.000001 slice.
The earliest calculation some 47 trillion years ago, If you take into effect the speed of light from the time of creation.
(Billy Albert Meier had calculated the half life of the speed of light and from that he measured closest to the exact time of the big bang including the 7 hyperspaces it created.)
0 Being the actual point of explosion 1 being the explosion and -1 being the implosion.
Time travel itself would be compared to changing the radio dial to the frequency or number of time slices that were created. Because we cannot know the exact time of the big bang to calculate, we would have to work backwards from this time and get approximates within the milliseconds.
To travel in time, you need to use the frequencies smaller then the chronon and that is where the tachyons come in.
They travel billions of times the speed of light.. The sub-neutrinos could be used as a carrier to transmit the signal to the past or the future.
Everything is frequency!
Brain waves do travel outside the body and thought is a particle that travels faster than light.
Forget about the 24hr clock and think of it as linear time. Each separate multiverse has its time line traveling in the same direction and speed as our own but sometimes the frequency of 2 or 3 want to share the same band wave and they cross each other like a double or triple helix causing what is known as the Mandela effect.
Thoughts anyone???
-
This is my new theory...
Time is measured by the chronon in this 3rd dimensional reality and I will try to explain this the best way I can.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I am not a mathematician so please bear with me...
How I see that space-time really works is this...
Every second that you live your life, is like a radio frequency..
I like people who think for themselves, well done on having an idea of your own. However let me show you something.
Imagine your radio frequencies being removed fromt he space they pass through , remove all the radiation, in your imagine you should now just see a 2d plane of darkness, i.e absolute space.
I now want you to re-add the radio waves/light. You now should see Minkowski space-time. Time being that of c constant.
However take note of the 2d plane, note that time exists for the plane although it is timeless.
Also take note that time is measured relative to the 2d plane that always stays at 0.
Before the big bang there was nothing of the imagination but this 2d plane of darkness. 0 dimensions was never the beginning, 0 dimensions is the lack of light or sight if you like.
-
A BH of 17 billion suns could not be produced in 13 billion years. Our suns life cycle will be about 10 billion years. Mathematically a 13.6 billion year old universe is lying about its age. We cannot use our limit of technology to distinguish images as a limit of the universe itself. That is actually ludicrous.
-
I like people who think for themselves, well done on having an idea of your own. However let me show you something.
Imagine your radio frequencies being removed fromt he space they pass through , remove all the radiation, in your imagine you should now just see a 2d plane of darkness, i.e absolute space.
I now want you to re-add the radio waves/light. You now should see Minkowski space-time. Time being that of c constant.
I am thinking though.. What if the big bang wasn't just an explosion but also an implosion as well making the 0 being the actual event and the expansion being the +1 and implosion being the -1
The universe would also have possibly a black whole in the central core being the -1
-
I like people who think for themselves, well done on having an idea of your own. However let me show you something.
Imagine your radio frequencies being removed fromt he space they pass through , remove all the radiation, in your imagine you should now just see a 2d plane of darkness, i.e absolute space.
I now want you to re-add the radio waves/light. You now should see Minkowski space-time. Time being that of c constant.
I am thinking though.. What if the big bang wasn't just an explosion but also an implosion as well making the 0 being the actual event and the expansion being the +1 and implosion being the -1
The universe would also have possibly a black whole in the central core being the -1
The big bang is not an explosion as such. However I do agree before the event of the big bang there was firstly an ''implosion''.
However we can look at this ''implosion'' to be the first existence of G (gravity), Isotropic centripetal force. Try to imagine several points on a virtual inflated balloons surface centripetally at the same time being drawn to a central point, however the difficulty is to determine what these points or whole of point 0E is.
-
What is your basis of a BB if you cannot relate it to 13.6 billion years? The theory has no footing except in peoples minds. BH's prove the universe we observe has to be much older than 13 billion years old
-
I have the answer to my own questions
The speed of ''time'' we presently use is directly relative to the speed of the Earth's rotation.
If we evolved else where in the beginning and devised the measurement of time in the same way, our ''speed'' of time would be directly relative to the rotational speed of the ''new'' planet we evolved on, being either a faster ''speed'' of time or a slower ''speed' of time relative to where we devised time.
-
I repeat:
It is interesting that any measurement after 0t becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement being used. This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.
-
I repeat:
It is interesting that any measurement after 0t becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement being used. This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.
Who is "the best scientific mind this world has ever seen"?
-
I repeat:
It is interesting that any measurement after 0t becomes instantaneous history no matter what the speed/rate of equivalent ''time''measurement being used. This logic alone overwhelmingly over ruling such premise as time dilation, yet you all still choose to ignore the best scientific mind this world has ever seen.
Who is "the best scientific mind this world has ever seen"?
Of course I refer to myself, no more being humble from me, its time for ''hard balling'', I have been very nice trying to get people to listen and discuss, I know my ''stuff'' and it is about time science listened instead of being arrogant.
My premise on time is unbreakable. Please feel free to try to break it.