0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Time measures rates of change. Rates of change themselves change due to what we understand as time dilation. There is no universal time at all. If we were to imagine all the particles and fields in the universe to be frozen in one state and stepped forward by discrete amounts then points of synchronization would be distributed throughout the system. Where the particles in those areas had exactly the same 'clock' rate. This would be wavelike. The concept of time does not lend itself well to modeling this kind of system because of the need for transformations at every region of different rates of change. This is a complication in a system that appears to be more fluid than static. So as the title states, is time irrelevant?

Quote from: jeffreyH on 11/11/2014 22:30:33Time measures rates of change. Rates of change themselves change due to what we understand as time dilation. There is no universal time at all. If we were to imagine all the particles and fields in the universe to be frozen in one state and stepped forward by discrete amounts then points of synchronization would be distributed throughout the system. Where the particles in those areas had exactly the same 'clock' rate. This would be wavelike. The concept of time does not lend itself well to modeling this kind of system because of the need for transformations at every region of different rates of change. This is a complication in a system that appears to be more fluid than static. So as the title states, is time irrelevant?That was very unclear. In any case time is not irrelevant in any sense of the term,

Time measures rates of change.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 11/11/2014 22:30:33Time measures rates of change. No! Rate of change is dx/dt, i.e. has dimensions of x/time.Time is what separates sequential events.

This raises a question I need some help with. Does the measure of Planck time place a limit on that interval? I've heard it argued both ways, one suggesting that "Planck time is only the interval we can successfully measure." And the other position; "Planck time is truly the shortest length of time possible." I would appreciate hearing everyone's view on the question.

If you want to take out the concept of 'time dilation', you have to take on Einstein's theory of special relativity.

No! Rate of change is dx/dt, i.e. has dimensions of x/time.Time is what separates sequential events.