[talanum1 (OP)]

Some say we move through time at one second per second, but this is equivalent to saying we move through time at one - a dimensionless quantity.

[Bored chemist]

Others say we move through spacetime at C.

[Halc]

Others say we move through spacetime at C.

One does not move through spacetime at all. An object traces a worldline through spacetime, and the slope of that worldline relative to an arbitrary reference defines motion relative to that reference.

Some say we move through time at one second per second, but this is equivalent to saying we move through time at one - a dimensionless quantity.

Which makes the statement a mere tautology. Your point?

[puppypower]

It may be better to say we transition in time.  The term transition in time could imply movement between locations. However, there are also transitions in time that do not require movement and changes of reference, such as freezing a chicken. 

If you look at clocks, they measure time, but they do not behave like time. Clocks cycle. Each day, noon and midnight will repeat. This implies time is a wave that is cycling. However, time does not transition this way. Time moves in one direction; to the future. I cannot cycle in time to recreate noon, yesterday, even if the clock says it is noon. It is a new day and time has moved forward. The clock tells you that you can indeed cycle, by returning to the factory floor at 7 am, to make more high quality cogs, just like yesterday. The clock was designed to structure time, but it does simulate how time propagates. It forces time to behave in a way that is convenient, but not in a way that is true to the nature of time.

The clock is a misleading tool. The action of a clock is like measuring barometric pressure with a meter stick. This can be done with ingenuity. However, this approach creates the wrong visual imaginary of time, and leads to conceptual problems with time. This can impact theory by making the theory more convenient but conceptually flawed.

Time has a stronger connection to entropy. Both time and entropy move in one direction. Neither cycle and nor repeat like a wave or energy. Time propagates to the future, while entropy has to increase according to the second law. They move side by side.

Say we were to freeze the extra chicken we bought. The freezing will lower the entropy of the chicken, since it will slow molecular movement. The freezing will also allow the chicken to last longer; preserved, as though the lowering of entropy has caused its time transitional rates to slow.  If we thaw the chicken, the entropy will increase. Now the time transitions within the chicken will speed up and it can spoil faster. We better cook it tonight.

Say we had to two dead twins, who just died. I put one twin in the freezer ,and one twin is placed  on a space ship that will travel near the speed of light. When the moving dead twin returns to earth and we compare him to the frozen stationary dead twin, they both look the same. Both has time slowed in different ways.

In college, I was a materials specialists, which is metals, ceramics and polymers. Polymers, such as plastics are interesting in that their properties are often time dependent. In other words, the speed at which they are acted upon, impacts how they will behave.

If you have ever heard of silly putty, it is a polymer that feels like putty in your hand. If you throw a ball of silly putty against the ground; speed up its interaction, it will bounce like a solid ball of rubber on steroids. If you stretch it slowly, in time, it stretches like taffy, but if you stretch it with a fast jerk, it shears like a solid. Its properties are all based on how forced is transmitted in time. Fast force impulses will make it behave differently compared to slow force impulses. Water can cut through stone and steel at high pressure and velocity. Water becomes a super solid in terms of its impact.

Along these time lines, many consumer plastics are tested using time/temperature combinations. Testing at higher temperature, like thawing the chicken, will lower the time to failure. This relationship between time and temperature, allows one to test a plastic for a short time and then extrapolate how long it will last, in time, at ambient conditions. The 20 year paint, may have only been tested for a few months under hotter, time accelerated conditions. The 20 year warranty is based on an extrapolation in time/temperature.

I often wondered how the impact of time-temperature, on distant objects, modifies the observed changes in reference time, due to relativity? For example, according to GR the center of gravity of a star has time running the slowest. Yet, the center of a star shows the fastest material transitions in time; fusion core. This fastest fusion time measurement is going in the opposite direction of the slower time in space-time, due to GR. The two time vectors oppose each other. Say we have a dense stellar object, giving off emissions, which time vector is dominant; GR or TS time, where T is temperate and S is entropy at the given pressure?

If you look at the acceleration due to gravity; d/t/t, it is two parts time and one part distance or space-time plus time. The space-time aspect of the acceleration  is connected to GR, while the extra time vector is connected to TS. The light from a star is connected to its fusion core. This is TS based time. This time vector slows as we move to the surface, as it cools; frozen chicken and plastic affects in time. The GR time vector should speed up time at the surface relative to the core.

 

[Bored chemist]

they both look the same.

No, they don't.
One has the cell damage associated with freezing.
There's a fundamental difference.
Slowing time is not the same as slowing a process.

[Bored chemist]

Water becomes a super solid in terms of its impact.

No
It doesn't need to be solid to cut through stone; it just needs to carry momentum.
You could use a gas jet if you drove it hard enough.

[criggsb33]

Some say we move through time at one second per second, but this is equivalent to saying we move through time at one - a dimensionless quantity.

The problem here is the same that has haunted any discussion of time, and that is that we first must define what time is.  I say that time and length are equivalent.  Time is the length of objects and the length between objects.  There is nothing else.  Space does not exist, therefore spacetime does not exist.  It is all time.  A second is a length.  One does not move through a length.  A length tells one how far one has moved.

[Hayseed]

The problem with time is that some think time is a rate.  It is not.  Time is a duration, but we measure and compare it with a rate.  Time is omnipresent.  Just like length.  The true explanation of light and gravity will be based on omnipresent time and length.