# Time

• 18 Replies
• 6637 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

#### Emc2

• Sr. Member
• 175
• <-- free thinker ..
##### Time
« on: 08/09/2012 11:00:43 »
It might be plausible for a photon to be the carrier of progression, hence time.   After all, everything ceases to exist if there is no light ( photons ), likewise if time stopped, all ceases to exist also..

For light is everywhere, and everything is always expanding, growing, progressing, etc....

E=MC2       so then         T=MC2

( Time is dependent on the mass/momentum of the observer and the observers speed in there frame of reference in relation to the speed of light squared )

better  yet -  T2 = m2c4 + p2c2

never think that you have ever learned enough.....

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• 428
##### Re: Time
« Reply #1 on: 10/09/2012 16:19:11 »
Matter uses time for gravitational radiation.Kinetic energy uses time for motion. In your   definition time is energy.

#### Emc2

• Sr. Member
• 175
• <-- free thinker ..
##### Re: Time
« Reply #2 on: 11/09/2012 07:39:14 »
Yes Time is  reflective in the relative Energy.

As mass and speed increases so does Energy, the opposite happens in Time ( it decreases or slows )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Of course Gravity and space/time play parts in these equations out in space.
never think that you have ever learned enough.....

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• 428
##### Re: Time
« Reply #3 on: 13/09/2012 15:33:13 »
Yes Time is  reflective in the relative Energy.

As mass and speed increases so does Energy, the opposite happens in Time ( it decreases or slows )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Of course Gravity and space/time play parts in these equations out in space.
Well,if mass can be energy then time can be too.But you can't measure quantity of motion by kinetic energy or by mass.Therefore time is energy,which is constantly arriving and leaving.

#### Emc2

• Sr. Member
• 175
• <-- free thinker ..
##### Re: Time
« Reply #4 on: 15/09/2012 05:41:54 »
all mass has energy ( E=MC2 ), a Photon IS energy but has no mass, but does have momentum, hence E2 = m2c4 + p2c2

Time ( movement/progression ) slows down ( caused by the drag on matter as speed increases ) as speed increases and energy also increases.

SO  -   speed +  = energy + = time -

A photon is the only object in the universe so far found, that is NOT relative to the observer, but is relative to everything..

any 2 observers ( one moving & one stationary ) that agree on the speed of light, have to disagree on time and distance..
never think that you have ever learned enough.....

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• 428
##### Re: Time
« Reply #5 on: 15/09/2012 16:51:35 »
all mass has energy ( E=MC2 ), a Photon IS energy but has no mass, but does have momentum, hence E2 = m2c4 + p2c2

Time ( movement/progression ) slows down ( caused by the drag on matter as speed increases ) as speed increases and energy also increases.

SO  -   speed +  = energy + = time -

A photon is the only object in the universe so far found, that is NOT relative to the observer, but is relative to everything..

any 2 observers ( one moving & one stationary ) that agree on the speed of light, have to disagree on time and distance..
Wrong.Earth observer has energy+  relatively of observer of International Space Station.However he has time+ relatively of observer of ISS.
« Last Edit: 15/09/2012 16:53:49 by simplified »

#### Bracewell

• Jr. Member
• 16
##### Re: Time
« Reply #6 on: 16/11/2012 22:40:05 »
It seems there is a different interpretation of what I understand is Einstein Time in that there seems to be a suggestion that Time flows.
As I understand it Time does not flow and it is interactions between masses that create the impression of Time flowing , i.e. events measured by other events. Time gives a rate (faster or slower) to the interactions and nothing more. Everything, surely, can be explained within these terms?

#### Bracewell

• Jr. Member
• 16
##### Re: Time
« Reply #7 on: 20/11/2012 14:55:19 »
On a star with an extreme rate of rotation is it possible that the mass at the equator (speed plus gravity) is subject to a different Time regime from the mass at the poles (substantially gravity only). If so, would this affect the Entropic development of the star?

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• 428
##### Re: Time
« Reply #8 on: 28/11/2012 13:56:44 »
It seems there is a different interpretation of what I understand is Einstein Time in that there seems to be a suggestion that Time flows.
As I understand it Time does not flow and it is interactions between masses that create the impression of Time flowing , i.e. events measured by other events. Time gives a rate (faster or slower) to the interactions and nothing more. Everything, surely, can be explained within these terms?

Does motion flow faster or slower?I think one part of motion is time and another part of the motion is speed.Different observers see different quantities of time and speed in one motion.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2012 13:58:50 by simplified »

#### Bracewell

• Jr. Member
• 16
##### Re: Time
« Reply #9 on: 28/11/2012 23:00:24 »
Sim, I agree but I think you are talking about clocks. Clocks measure the local rate of events but this notion of Time has no universal (global) effect. Time, as I understand it, is a by-product of mass and or mass and speed and it affects all events without exception.
I can hear your howl of protest but clock time as I see it measures the fastest rate at which one mass can interact with another (Entropy) but now add universal Time to get the true rate.
I don't know if this makes sense?

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• 1281
##### Re: Time
« Reply #10 on: 30/11/2012 05:01:17 »
It might be plausible for a photon to be the carrier of progression, hence time.   After all, everything ceases to exist if there is no light ( photons ),

I don't agree, just because light has ceased to make reality apparent, there still exists the force we call gravity which is completely independent of electromagnetic radiation.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• 428
##### Re: Time
« Reply #11 on: 08/12/2012 19:17:26 »
Sim, I agree but I think you are talking about clocks. Clocks measure the local rate of events but this notion of Time has no universal (global) effect. Time, as I understand it, is a by-product of mass and or mass and speed and it affects all events without exception.
I can hear your howl of protest but clock time as I see it measures the fastest rate at which one mass can interact with another (Entropy) but now add universal Time to get the true rate.
I don't know if this makes sense?

Clocks can show where time was slower and where time was faster.What can show where meter was shorter and where longer?

#### Bracewell

• Jr. Member
• 16
##### Re: Time
« Reply #12 on: 09/12/2012 17:19:32 »
Sim, as I understand it, time and dimensions are closely linked, i.e. a reliable clock is needed to know how big something is. An atomic clock seems to be the best that is available to us. Universal (Einstein) time affects this kind of clock as it does all others. There may be some doubt about by how much our clocks are affected in total as the local mass and galactic speed seems confused these days. However, I am sure better and more thorough explanations are available.

#### zordim

• Jr. Member
• 46
##### Re: Time
« Reply #13 on: 09/12/2012 22:17:17 »
It has been discovered, long time ago, by J.C. Maxwell
$$\displaystyle \frac{ds}{dt} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon \cdot \mu}}$$

The only thing (which turned out to be the hardest thing to grasp) one needs to realize is that $$\epsilon$$ and $$\mu$$ are the fundamental, essential properties of the space, that is, of spacetime.
The spacetime is essentially the electromagnetic phenomenon.
Lengths, time, $$\epsilon$$ and $$\mu$$ are its fundamental properties, simply related with the "that's the way it fundamentally is"-law $$\displaystyle \frac{ds}{dt} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\epsilon \cdot \mu}}$$.

And, the fundamental, essential relation which connects energy to space is $$\Delta E \cdot \Delta t = h$$, which follows from $$\Delta E = h \cdot \nu$$.

That what enables interaction (attaching) of elementary energy and space is their essential electromagnetic nature.

#### simplified

• Sr. Member
• 428
##### Re: Time
« Reply #14 on: 11/12/2012 17:50:26 »
Sim, as I understand it, time and dimensions are closely linked, i.e. a reliable clock is needed to know how big something is. An atomic clock seems to be the best that is available to us. Universal (Einstein) time affects this kind of clock as it does all others. There may be some doubt about by how much our clocks are affected in total as the local mass and galactic speed seems confused these days. However, I am sure better and more thorough explanations are available.
If gravitational length contraction doesn't exist then time of slow objects is less slowed by gravitation than time of very fast objects is slowed only by the same gravitation.Then something is important :does fast motion or slow motion create  time in atomic clock?
« Last Edit: 13/12/2012 14:07:09 by simplified »

#### zordim

• Jr. Member
• 46
##### Re: Time
« Reply #15 on: 12/12/2012 11:09:14 »
Sim, as I understand it, time and dimensions are closely linked, i.e. a reliable clock is needed to know how big something is. An atomic clock seems to be the best that is available to us. Universal (Einstein) time affects this kind of clock as it does all others. There may be some doubt about by how much our clocks are affected in total as the local mass and galactic speed seems confused these days. However, I am sure better and more thorough explanations are available.
If gravitational length contraction doesn't exist then time of slow objects is less slowed by gravitation than time of very fast objects is slowed only by the same gravitation.Then something is important :does fast motion or slow motion create  time in atomic clock?

Dear Bracewell, simplified, ethos_,
I do not want to intrude, but just to draw your attention to
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46034.0
That theory is purely scientific theory - in it, it is explicitly demonstrated that everything can be explained without a single abstract thing/thought. It contains only facts, and simple and clear math.
That is all, I won't write anymore in this thread (I am not a "quack").

Regards,
Zordim

#### ka7th

• First timers
• 4
##### Re: Time
« Reply #16 on: 12/12/2012 11:42:56 »
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46333.0
i would also link my thread to my idea that time, as a component of spacetime can have both be a positive and neagtive compenent, depending on the layer of spacetime your observing.

#### imatfaal

• Neilep Level Member
• 2787
• rouge moderator
##### Re: Time
« Reply #17 on: 13/12/2012 16:39:33 »
Oy! Oy! Oy!

thanks - imatfaal / moderator
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

#### Bracewell

• Jr. Member
• 16
##### Re: Time
« Reply #18 on: 18/04/2013 23:51:44 »
As this thread is for exploration I would like to ‘play’ a bit more with Time.
Imagine a situation where Earth is motionless and there is nothing else around. Lift an object from the surface and then let it drop. The energy released at impact is the same as that taken to lift the object. This is true even if the object is taken to extreme distances and despite taking a limitless amount of entropic time, the impact speed will never be greater than the escape velocity for the planet (about 25,000 MPH).
Now, at the extreme distance, speculate on the behaviour of the object when it is released.
With Newtonian mechanics there is no problem, the object will surely head under the force of gravity for the centre of the Earth and arrive at the predicted speed.
As I understand it, the behaviour would be much the same under Einstein’s curved space rules. Einstein rules supersede Newtonian rules but still we mix and match between these two ideas on gravity all the time.
However, I think both of the above concepts have a weakness in that both consider an object as an object and not as a dynamic energy structure running on entropic time. When the object is considered thus, it is possible then that the object is open to a subtle interplay between spacetime and entropic time. This interplay could cause an imbalance in the objects structure and result in the object’s mass being redistributed about the centre.
Of course, spacetime is ridiculously weak but then electron movement is ridiculously fast. The position of an object is reliant on an even distribution of mass but if the mass is continuously being distributed unevenly then it is moving because it is continuously being formed in a new place. This effect would be additional second by entropic second i.e. it would be an acceleration.
It could be speculated then that the behaviour of an object in these circumstances may be more like what is observed, i.e. a long looping orbit at extreme distances when the effect is weak and a more direct route to impact at short distances when the effect is strong.
Convention makes what is postulated here seem unnecessary, so why post this? The last sentence is the clue as it suggests an alternative to explore that might be more productive instead of looking for invisible matter to explain what is considered to be odd gravitational behaviour.
Have fun and feel free to comment.