What is the rate of future time?

  • 62 Replies
  • 5406 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
What is the rate of future time?
« on: 23/01/2016 20:17:10 »
as title.

0...................................................0
please answer the following question, 



what is the rate of time between point A and point B or 0 and 0?

A rate of speed or a rate of distance or a rate of speed over distance can not be possibly a rate of future time.
« Last Edit: 23/01/2016 20:52:52 by Thebox »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #1 on: 23/01/2016 23:10:53 »
There is no answer to your question as you have not given all the relative parameters.
What is the rate of any time past, present, or future, depends on who's reference frame you are measuring it from, and the relative speeds and relative direction of travel.
There is no Universal clock that has a Universal time.
Time is relative, not a constant.
Let go of your Newtonian view of reality. We have moved past that.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #2 on: 24/01/2016 06:36:22 »
There is no answer to your question as you have not given all the relative parameters.
What is the rate of any time past, present, or future, depends on who's reference frame you are measuring it from, and the relative speeds and relative direction of travel.
There is no Universal clock that has a Universal time.
Time is relative, not a constant.
Let go of your Newtonian view of reality. We have moved past that.

A shadow on a sundial has a rate

A clock has a rate

A Caesium atom has a rate

Light has a rate

So you must be able to answer my seemingly simple question, I have not asked you the rate of light, I have not asked you the rate of a clock, I have not asked you the rate of a Caesium atom or did I ask the rate of a shadow, because all these rates are relative to motion over a distance, an increment of history, a based origin on the Earth's rate of spin relative to the Sun.

I asked what is the rate of time in the space between point A and point B?

Surely you are not going to suggest that the rate of time of space is the same as the rate of any of the mentioned?
 

Science explains light takes 1 second to travel 299 792 458m  through space-time, so what is the rate of space-time?   I do not see any measurement of time, I see measurement of relative velocity over a distance.








« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 06:51:46 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #3 on: 24/01/2016 08:04:32 »
Rate is defined as change per unit time. Hence speed is the rate of change of position per unit time, flux is the number of photons crossing a unit area per unit time, etc.

The conventional unit of time is the second, so the rate of time is one second per second, i.e. 1.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #4 on: 24/01/2016 11:11:43 »
Rate is defined as change per unit time. Hence speed is the rate of change of position per unit time, flux is the number of photons crossing a unit area per unit time, etc.

The conventional unit of time is the second, so the rate of time is one second per second, i.e. 1.

I am sorry Alan but at this moment from what you said, I am now confused.  You define rate is a change per unit of time, yet time is defined by a rate,
so what exactly are you saying one second per second suppose to represent?

What are you saying a second is?

I do not understand,

if you was to measure anything you would start at 0 would you not?

So 0 to 1 second would have a distance would it not? 

So how long  of a distance is a 1 second distance?

For example lets us say we have a wave-length, in 1 second of distance there was ten cycles per second 

in a second situation we had a 1 second of distance and the wave produced only 5 cycles per second of length


So how can the cycle difference ever possibly change the 1 second equal length?


I.e c running parallel to c ,299792458 m  equal lengths

Now in one of the lengths we put a medium






Can you please explain the difference in wave lengths when the the two distances are equal?


d=.....................................................1s

d=.....................................................1s


Why does it matter how many cycles there are between A and B?













« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 11:21:45 by Thebox »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #5 on: 24/01/2016 11:44:56 »
OK.. I don't know why but I'll give it one more go.
Seeing as you are not making it relative to anything than it can only mean that it is relative to yourself. Time for you will never change it's rate. You will age at the same rate until the day you die. That is irrelevant of your perceived speed, or the fact that you live in a Gravity well. In fact it makes no difference even if you went to space or even if you started accelerating towards the speed of light.
Time for you will always run at the same rate whatever system you want to measure it by. It has for all your past, it is now, and it is not going to change in your future.
You can not make your own time do anything other than run at the same rate.
« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 11:47:50 by Space Flow »
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 599
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #6 on: 24/01/2016 13:11:06 »
Time always moves to the future. It does not stop nor does time moves in cycles. I can't go back to my youth nor does time cycle back to yesterday or last year. Although everyone is familiar with the flow of time, we nevertheless measure time using cyclic expressions that repeats itself; clocks and cesium atoms. What exactly are we measuring?

This is sort of like measuring light with a scale. This measurement may have value, but a scale is designed for the property of weight and does not properly reflect the nature of light, even of this give some form of measurement. This disconnect can lead to conceptual problems, due to the misrepresentation. If we measure temperature with a hydrometer, it can be done, but it makes the mind add extra properties to time to make the translation.

Time flows in a way that is much more similar to the concept of entropy. Both time and entropy increase, as both move to the future. Both time and entropy express changes of state which gain increasing complexity and change. Therefore an entropy clock would much better parallel the nature of time, so there is less conceptual confusion or need for translation. There are no hidden wires for conceptual confusion.

An example of an entropy clock, is what I will call the fish clock. With the fish clock, we take a fresh fish of standard weight and thickness and let it sit at room temperature. Our increment of time will be based on when you can smell the fish at 10 meters. Decay works under the principle of entropy, and like time, both decay and time will move to the future and will not reverse or cycle. We can't un-stink the fish. We are not misrepresenting time with a hidden wire.

That being said, if the universe was expanding relative to universal space-time, that means that all the entropy or fish clocks of the universe should be getting faster and faster, since time is speeding up. All the fish clocks should stinking sooner today than in the past. Is this observed?

As an experiment, say we have two factories, side by side, with each using X energy and making Y defects per hour; relative to our reference. We place these two factories side-by-side. The first will be in a slower reference were time runs slower than us and the second will be in an expanded space-time reference where time runs faster than us. Next, we observed the output from both at the same time. This simulates the old universe and the new universe. We can do this with stars.

If space-time expansion affects are real, the slower reference factory will show less energy output and fewer defect per unit of earth time. The faster reference will appear to be the opposite shown more output and more entropy per unit of earth time? Is this observed if we compare the oldest and the newest stars?

If not, space-time expansion cannot be the answer. It may just be space that is expanding. Maybe someone can show us how entropy and energy output was slower way back when.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #7 on: 24/01/2016 13:13:06 »
yet time is defined by a rate,


Oh no it isn't. Time is defined as the separation between subsequent events. It is measured by the number of cycles of a cesium clock.

One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 13:16:11 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #8 on: 24/01/2016 13:50:04 »
yet time is defined by a rate,


Oh no it isn't. Time is defined as the separation between subsequent events. It is measured by the number of cycles of a cesium clock.

One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

It is measured by the number of cycles per second, the second came before the caesium clock, how is cycles per second not a rate? 


''One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles''

I completely disagree, 9,192,631,770 cycles it the rate of the caesium atom in 1 second, the cycles are not 1 second you have matched the amount of rate to equal one second.

It would not matter if there was only ten cycles in 1 second, the length of 1 second does not change. 1 second is a reference point distance, this can not alter,


I noticed how you left out cycles per second.




*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #9 on: 24/01/2016 15:17:04 »
yet time is defined by a rate,
Oh no it isn't. Time is defined as the separation between subsequent events. It is measured by the number of cycles of a cesium clock.

One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
I completely disagree,
Alan is right. Either the article you read is wrong or you have misread it.
1 second is not a distance.
It really does matter whether there are 9,192,631,770 cycles or 10 cycles in one second.
I'm beginning to understand why you are also confused over wavelength.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #10 on: 24/01/2016 15:22:14 »

Alan is right. Either the article you read is wrong or you have misread it.
1 second is not a distance.
It really does matter whether there are 9,192,631,770 cycles or 10 cycles in one second.
I'm beginning to understand why you are also confused over wavelength.

I do not think you have it right there Colin, the number of cycles is used to represent a second, but the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second.  1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.

 


*

Offline alysdexia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 121
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #11 on: 24/01/2016 16:49:22 »
Thebox, you need a bunch of these: ∆δd−∇.  Make use of these or don't come back.

who's -> whose
it's -> its
affect -> effect
faster -> swifter

I take it this forum is actually full of engineers and other handykin.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #12 on: 24/01/2016 16:50:03 »
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.

Quote
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
What, pray, is a normal second? There are solar seconds (1/86400 of a solar day, used for daytime celestial navigation and general timekeeping) and siderial seconds (a bit shorter, used for night celestial navigation and astronomy) but as the earth wobbles a bit, the international standard second is only and exactly the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #13 on: 24/01/2016 16:54:52 »
I take it this forum is actually full of engineers and other handykin.

Not entirely. There are a few prancing pedants and supercilious smartarses who add nothing to the debate. Given the choice, I prefer to teach physic's to greengrocer's wot come to lern.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4319
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #14 on: 24/01/2016 20:44:27 »
Quote from: TheBox
1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.
In the metric system used by scientists (SI):
- Distance is measured in meters between two points in space.
- Time is measured in seconds, between two points in time.

By taking something periodic like the motion of the Earth around the Sun, you have something which takes a certain amount of time to move a certain distance. So it is possible that you could confuse the units and say that "1 second is a distance".  In this case, the distance is zero because the Earth returns to its original position

But Time and Distance are different units, and should not be confused.

Quote
the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second.
The first definition of a second was with mechanical clocks, trying to track the average length of the day.

But the length of a day is a figure that keeps changing (eg due to tidal influence of the Moon, weather on Earth, etc). So in 1960, the length of the day was redefined as being a fraction of the year 1900, which, being in the past, did not change.

As clocks improved, it was possible to get atomic clocks (eg rubidium and cesium clocks) that were relatively cheap, and even portable. These could measure time in any lab more accurately than your average engineer, chemist or physicist could work out the length of the year 1900. So the length of the second was once again redefined, based on oscillation of cesium atoms.

This redefinition did not make the measurement less accurate, since the best astronomical data was used in making this calibration. But it did make time measurement more accurate and accessible for anyone who wanted to measure time in their own laboratory.
 
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Based_on_mechanical_clocks

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #15 on: 24/01/2016 22:10:33 »
Quote from: TheBox
1 second is a distance, any measurement starts at zero and has to have an end point.
In the metric system used by scientists (SI):
- Distance is measured in meters between two points in space.
- Time is measured in seconds, between two points in time.

By taking something periodic like the motion of the Earth around the Sun, you have something which takes a certain amount of time to move a certain distance. So it is possible that you could confuse the units and say that "1 second is a distance".  In this case, the distance is zero because the Earth returns to its original position

But Time and Distance are different units, and should not be confused.

Quote
the second came before the caesium clock, the cycles were originally timed by a normal second and made equal to a second.
The first definition of a second was with mechanical clocks, trying to track the average length of the day.

But the length of a day is a figure that keeps changing (eg due to tidal influence of the Moon, weather on Earth, etc). So in 1960, the length of the day was redefined as being a fraction of the year 1900, which, being in the past, did not change.

As clocks improved, it was possible to get atomic clocks (eg rubidium and cesium clocks) that were relatively cheap, and even portable. These could measure time in any lab more accurately than your average engineer, chemist or physicist could work out the length of the year 1900. So the length of the second was once again redefined, based on oscillation of cesium atoms.

This redefinition did not make the measurement less accurate, since the best astronomical data was used in making this calibration. But it did make time measurement more accurate and accessible for anyone who wanted to measure time in their own laboratory.
 
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second#Based_on_mechanical_clocks

''- Distance is measured in meters between two points in space.
- Time is measured in seconds, between two points in time.''


Time is measured in seconds between two points of time, how is measuring between two points not a distance?


A............B   distance
A............B   time


Ok let us define we will use the speed of light in a vacuum to measure ''time'' 

The speed of light is constant as you know so is a perfect thing for measuring a rate of time.


299792458 m  we define has an equal distance of c to 1 second

So in experiment I take 4 caesium clocks and fly them around the world twice, for each caesium clock there is a second clock of light timing the experiment


so we have 4 caesium clocks and 4 invariant light clocks.


clock A-light clock A

clock B-light clock B

clock C-light clock C

clock D-light clock D



All my light clocks


0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s

This never changes , my light clocks show no dilation of time while the inaccurate variant caesium clock is simply not a constant.









*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #16 on: 24/01/2016 22:22:14 »
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.

Quote
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
What, pray, is a normal second? There are solar seconds (1/86400 of a solar day, used for daytime celestial navigation and general timekeeping) and siderial seconds (a bit shorter, used for night celestial navigation and astronomy) but as the earth wobbles a bit, the international standard second is only and exactly the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

Quote me If I am incorrect, the caesium atom is in space-time so there is no way it can truly measure time.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #17 on: 24/01/2016 22:25:26 »
OK.. I don't know why but I'll give it one more go.
Seeing as you are not making it relative to anything than it can only mean that it is relative to yourself. Time for you will never change it's rate. You will age at the same rate until the day you die. That is irrelevant of your perceived speed, or the fact that you live in a Gravity well. In fact it makes no difference even if you went to space or even if you started accelerating towards the speed of light.
Time for you will always run at the same rate whatever system you want to measure it by. It has for all your past, it is now, and it is not going to change in your future.
You can not make your own time do anything other than run at the same rate.

My time always runs at the same rate, your time always runs at the same rate, both of our times run at the same rate, time rate can not be different for different observers regardless of motion,
Like my question, what is the rate of space-time?

Not the rate of an atom, the rate of time?  A caesium atom exists in space-time and can not measure space-time


Science may has well say a dripping taps speed effects time, it is the equivalent to saying the rate of an atom changing effects time, the caesium is a clock with a rate no different to a dripping tap. 

How can a changing rate of something, that is a measuring aid, effect space-time?  it simply can not.



« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 22:33:42 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #18 on: 24/01/2016 22:40:50 »
I will ask it this way, the speed of light between A and B is an invariant, so If we flew 4 caesium clocks through this invariant, how does this effect the invariant constant in any way?

I consider the mistake is timing is different from time.


I consider the Keating experiment shows a timing dilation rather than a time dilation.

The Caesium atom frequency change being just that, the frequencies are out of sync in a period of time rather than time being out of sync.

Based on space-time=∞0

consider this

1.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future path,
2.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future past,



object.............0→...................object
t=→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→


Our past, our present, our future existing simultaneously
« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 23:03:21 by Thebox »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #19 on: 24/01/2016 23:02:08 »
All my light clocks


0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s
0.....................................1s

This never changes , my light clocks show no dilation of time while the inaccurate variant caesium clock is simply not a constant.
My time always runs at the same rate, your time always runs at the same rate, both of our times run at the same rate, time rate can not be different for different observers regardless of motion,
Like my question, what is the rate of space-time?
OK.. you are of course wrong about the light clock versus the cesium clock. In the same reference frame they would display time at the same rate. Any clock of any description whatsoever would be affected in exactly the same way. Learn Relativity.
It is not the clock or type of device or the way you make an observation that is seen to change, and it is never seen to change for an observer within the same reference frame.
Your light clock and the cesium clock will never vary in your own reference frame, but they will both vary by the exact same amount from my reference frame looking at yours.

Rate of time for me in my reference frame is the same as rate of time for you in your reference frame. But looking from one reference frame to the other, unless we were hugging, the rates would never match. Even if you and me were in the same room with you sitting at the table and me pacing they would not match.

Now you can try and word it any weird way you like, but that is a fact backed up by empirical evidence.
You may not like it, but that is irrelevant to the Universe. It basically doesn't give a sh1t whether you like how it works or not.
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #20 on: 24/01/2016 23:04:34 »
consider this

1.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future path,
2.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future past,



object.............0→...................object
t=→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→


Our past, our present, our future existing simultaneously

I know about the clocks. I know what a clock.. you missed this I think

consider this

1.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future path,
2.  Travelling an X vector from left to right, we observe a distant object in our future past,



object.............0→...................object
t=→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→


Our past, our present, our future existing simultaneously


SORRY QUOTE FAILURE

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #21 on: 24/01/2016 23:10:34 »
If you can really observe a distant object in your future, you are definitely on the wrong forum.
I'm sure there must be forums for discussing the paranormal somewhere...
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #22 on: 24/01/2016 23:14:59 »
Cycles per second is indeed a rate. So how many seconds are there in a second? One, always and for ever, by definition.

Quote
the cycles were originally timed by a normal second
What, pray, is a normal second? There are solar seconds (1/86400 of a solar day, used for daytime celestial navigation and general timekeeping) and siderial seconds (a bit shorter, used for night celestial navigation and astronomy) but as the earth wobbles a bit, the international standard second is only and exactly the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

Quote me If I am incorrect, the caesium atom is in space-time so there is no way it can truly measure time.

Nobody said it did. I said we measure time by counting the cycles of its radiation. Fortunately we know enough about relativistic time dilatation to allow us to measure time with sufficient accuracy to navigate by GPS.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #23 on: 24/01/2016 23:28:30 »
If you can really observe a distant object in your future, you are definitely on the wrong forum.
I'm sure there must be forums for discussing the paranormal somewhere...


Huh?  if you are travelling a journey, let us say you are going to the moon, it takes an amount of ''time'' to get there, you can see the moon, technically you can see your future ahead of you.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #24 on: 24/01/2016 23:44:20 »
Huh?  if you are travelling a journey, let us say you are going to the moon, it takes an amount of ''time'' to get there, you can see the moon, technically you can see your future ahead of you.
You don't see the future, but you can see where you are going. That allows you to predict where and when you will be in the future and avoid bumping into things.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #25 on: 24/01/2016 23:52:14 »

You don't see the future, but you can see where you are going. That allows you to predict where and when you will be in the future and avoid bumping into things.


Your not predicting anything, you observe the distant future.  Relative to a stationary observer they are in the now and can see into there own future if they was to travel a linearity clear path over distance.

Consider Newtons Laws, a body in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by external forces, so now consider that a journey into the ''future'', your path is destined unless external acting force acts on your journey.

So a body in motion following a linear path the body w ill remain synchronised to its future fate.  To say the future is quite ''clear''(constant-'constant), explains space and velocity and prediction.


constant-'constant is the key to the unification of the Universe, it may be obvious but it has obviously been overlooked because of its simplicity, however it is everything that makes relativity.



« Last Edit: 24/01/2016 23:57:34 by Thebox »

*

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 400
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #26 on: 24/01/2016 23:58:29 »
Why do I keep getting trapped in these ridiculous non logical posts?
I would have assumed that being a member of the supposedly clever monkeys, I would learn from experience and just stay away.

Is there any way to stop getting notifications about a post once you have made a comment?
We are made of Spacetime; with a sprinkling of Stardust.
Matter tells Spacetime how to Flow; Spacetime tells matter where to go

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #27 on: 25/01/2016 00:03:56 »
Why do I keep getting trapped in these ridiculous non logical posts?
I would have assumed that being a member of the supposedly clever monkeys, I would learn from experience and just stay away.

Is there any way to stop getting notifications about a post once you have made a comment?

Where do you get your none logical from?  it is axiom things, not even logic, self evidently true.


Can you or can you not see distant objects?

If you was to travel to the object that would take time to get there and be in your future when you arrived at the object?

So therefore simple axioms show us that we see the distance object in the now and also in a future relative to velocity.






*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #28 on: 25/01/2016 00:13:04 »
Why do I keep getting trapped in these ridiculous non logical posts?
I would have assumed that being a member of the supposedly clever monkeys, I would learn from experience and just stay away.

Is there any way to stop getting notifications about a post once you have made a comment?
Yes, go to the button where you enabled notify you will see it now says unnotify (or some such)

Why do we get hooked, that's a whole new thread or two [:)]
Maybe it's hope?
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #29 on: 25/01/2016 00:20:06 »

Can you or can you not see distant objects?
I refuse to answer on the grounds you may try to incriminate me.

If you was to travel to the object that would take time to get there and be in your future when you arrived at the object?
When you arrived it would be your present, and the travelling would be in your past.
Unless you are Dr Who of course!
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #30 on: 25/01/2016 00:32:04 »


When you arrived it would be your present, and the travelling would be in your past.
Unless you are Dr Who of course!

Yes exactly, when the now of you moves closer to the object, the now of the object moves closer to you, eventually the now's merge when the destination is reached.


The Journey space behind you is the past but if you was making a round trip, the past behind you is now the future trip again.



*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #31 on: 25/01/2016 03:47:37 »
Huh?  if you are travelling a journey, let us say you are going to the moon, it takes an amount of ''time'' to get there, you can see the moon, technically you can see your future ahead of you.
You don't see the future, but you can see where you are going. That allows you to predict where and when you will be in the future and avoid bumping into things.


Let us imagine an absolute stationary reference frame and an object (A) in this frame, now let us define that the now/ time, only moves forward relative to this object, we shall set a rate of 1 second of increment of time for a time reference point of the history.
 
 
With our measurement increment  rate we record 24 hours of history 86400 seconds.
 
Distance travelled 0 mile
 
time observed 24 hours
 
 
Now let us imagine an identical reference frame {b} that was divided from (A) by space (d)
 
Let us set the rate of time identical to (A)
 
We can imply t(A)∥ t(b} and is synchronous
 
 
Now let us imagine that  (d) =299792458m between (A) and (b}
 
Let us define that c (the speed of light) is an invariant and a constant speed over (d) 
 
Let us define that (c1) takes 1 second to travel from (A) to (b}
 
Let is define that (c2) takes 1 second to travel from (b} to (A)
 
We can imply that c1∥ c2 and is synchronous.
 
so we can imply  t(A)∥ t(b}∥ c1∥ c2
 
Now let us consider motion, let us leave reference frame (A) stationary, let us rotate reference point (b} 360 degrees around reference point (A) several times keeping radius =299792458 m
 
Let us define a new rate of time for reference point (b] , let us call it 1 second but it was a shorter increment than the original 1 second of time, A slower time rate than {A}
 
let us now define that (a) ≠ {b] and is no longer synchronous
 
However the synchronous of space-time remains true,
 
 
c1∥ c2 and remains synchronous regardless of b's variant showing no time dilation.


[attachment=20832]


added- I got it, your clock is out of synch because the earth is not a perfect sphere,

the distance changes meaning more or less time to the ground for the light.
« Last Edit: 25/01/2016 04:08:47 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #32 on: 25/01/2016 06:46:12 »
"1 second" cannot be a rate. The dimension of rate is T-1. One second is a measurement in dimension T.

You are strongly advised not to take flight until you have started the engine. Learn the fundamentals before inviting passegers on a journey into the unknown.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alysdexia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 121
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #33 on: 25/01/2016 07:01:16 »
effects -> affects
travel -> go

The object could change at any time.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #34 on: 25/01/2016 07:32:26 »
"1 second" cannot be a rate. The dimension of rate is T-1. One second is a measurement in dimension T.

You are strongly advised not to take flight until you have started the engine. Learn the fundamentals before inviting passegers on a journey into the unknown.

huuh?


''noun
1.
a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against another quantity or measure.''

verb
1.
assign a standard or value to (something) according to a particular scale.''


You use a rate of the caesium atom to define 1 second, d/t is a rate
« Last Edit: 25/01/2016 07:45:07 by Thebox »

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #35 on: 25/01/2016 07:59:17 »
You use a rate of the caesium atom to define 1 second, d/t is a rate
That doesn't make the second a rate.
One second is the time that elapses while the 9,192,631,770 cycles are counted, they are just a very accurate timer.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #36 on: 25/01/2016 08:07:22 »
You use a rate of the caesium atom to define 1 second, d/t is a rate
That doesn't make the second a rate.
One second is the time that elapses while the 9,192,631,770 cycles are counted, they are just a very accurate timer.

No it is not,

''Prior to 1964 the international standard second had been based upon the orbital period of the Earth, but the cesium clock period was found to be much more stable than the Earth's orbit! The SI unit of time, the second, is now defined by this transition in cesium.''

And is the amount of cycles per second measured originally by 1 second on a clock.


'


look at this way


 9,192,631,770 cycles in 1 second

 8,192,631,770 cycles in 1 second

so how can the cycle rate affect a 1 second period?

1 second is one second and can not change,

1 second is equal to 0.277 mile at 1035 mph, anything else is a scaling from this.

Time is a continuous constant rate, to measure time it has to be measured by using a constant rate.


Any clock is independent from time.  Time does not even care if the clock stops ticking
« Last Edit: 25/01/2016 08:38:53 by Thebox »

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #37 on: 25/01/2016 08:45:45 »
so how can the cycle rate affect a 1 second period?
It doesn't.
This is very, very basic maths. You should have stuck with Pete's course then you would understand.
I will try one last time.

Cycles per second is a measure of frequency. The frequency of your radio station (millions of cycles every second) is different from the frequency of mains electricity (50 cycles every second in UK).
If you want to measure one second using the mains, you would have to count 50 cycles to get 1second.
If you are using Cesium you have to count a lot more, but because they are closer together they still take up 1second.
Think of counting cars going by. In rush hour there will be far more cars going by every hour (and they are closer together) than there are at 2 in the morning (when they are further apart), eg 1000/hr against 2/hr, but the length of one hour is still the same.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #38 on: 25/01/2016 08:51:05 »
so how can the cycle rate affect a 1 second period?
It doesn't.
This is very, very basic maths. You should have stuck with Pete's course then you would understand.
I will try one last time.

Cycles per second is a measure of frequency. The frequency of your radio station (millions of cycles every second) is different from the frequency of mains electricity (50 cycles every second in UK).
If you want to measure one second using the mains, you would have to count 50 cycles to get 1second.
If you are using Cesium you have to count a lot more, but because they are closer together they still take up 1second.
Think of counting cars going by. In rush hour there will be far more cars going by every hour (and they are closer together) than there are at 2 in the morning (when they are further apart), eg 1000/hr against 2/hr, but the length of one hour is still the same.

I know what a frequency is.   You are missing the point, science defines time has an emittance rate.  An emittance rate is not time.

It does not matter that the emittance rate slows down, this does not and can not affect time. A lag in emittance rate is not a lag in time, time is not emitted , time just is, and just is does not change.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #39 on: 25/01/2016 08:58:52 »

I know what a frequency is.   
Apparently not.

time just is, and just is does not change.
I never said it changed.
Reread what I wrote and try to understand, this is fundamental to understanding frequency, wavelength and time.
This is my last attempt
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #40 on: 25/01/2016 09:06:41 »

Reread what I wrote and try to understand, this is fundamental to understanding frequency, wavelength and time.
This is my last attempt

I know what a frequency and a wave length and what time is. 

frequency = the amount of repeat occurrences


wave length - distance between peaks

time- the measurable event of change.

Why not try to read what I wrote again Colin, the post a few posts ago where I use light to measure time between point A and point B and use a circle to keep the radius distance always the same.

You are not understanding that any clock including atomic clocks is not time, they are devices, so please tell me how any device can change the rate of time? 

It simply can't

''but the length of one hour is still the same.''

yes that is what I am saying , so you agree with me then ?

The length of one second does not change, the frequency may change but that does not affect the 1 second length.

« Last Edit: 25/01/2016 09:13:25 by Thebox »

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #41 on: 25/01/2016 15:06:28 »
OK, just back from the gym and feeling generous. I am oozing generosity.
Getting this right is so important to your understanding of time that I'll try again.

frequency = the amount of repeat occurrences
No.
Frequency is the number of repeat occurances in a given time, usually 1 second.
I'm going to labour this because it is important we get it right.

When you are resting your heart rate is probably around 60 = 60 beats every minute = a frequency of 1 beat/s.
If you run upstairs it might go up to 100 = 100 beats every minute. It is the same minute, but you are cramming more beats into it.
If your heart rate was really regular at 60 beats/min you could use it to time 1 min by counting beats.
The cesium clock is similar, we can count the cycles (beats) until we get to  9,192,631,770 and we know 1s has passed.
This doesn't mean time has an emittance rate as you call it, it is the clock that has a tick, and we are counting the ticks.

Why not try to read what I wrote again Colin, the post a few posts ago where I use light to measure time between point A and point B and use a circle to keep the radius distance always the same.
No point until we resolve this problem. It isn't one we can agree to disagree on, because it is too fundamental.

You are not understanding that any clock including atomic clocks is not time, they are devices, so please tell me how any device can change the rate of time? 

It simply can't
You are right it can't (as far as we know).
This doesn't mean I agree with all you are saying so hear me out.
If you are at rest relative to a clock the time it shows will be consistent with other clocks at rest, and will not change.
If you move the clock as described in special relativity, then you will observe that the clock shows a diferent time to one that is at rest beside you.

''but the length of one hour is still the same.''

yes that is what I am saying , so you agree with me then ?
Yes, but subject to what I have just said.


The length of one second does not change, the frequency may change but that does not affect the 1 second length.
Yes, but again subject to what I have just said. So don't say I agree with all your theory.

You also need to go back and understand what Alan was saying about the rate of time, because time passes at 1 second every second, past future and present (we think). But it makes no sense to talk of the rate of time.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4913
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #42 on: 25/01/2016 16:54:06 »
Quote
science defines time has an emittance rate.

No!!! (for the  umpteenth time)

Time is the separation between sequential events, just as distance is the separation between geometric points.

We measure time with a cesium clock (we used to measure it with a klepsydra, but this forum is about science, not history) and we measure distance by the time it takes for light to travel between the points (we used to use Edward II's arm).

Definition of a dimension (e.g. time, length, mass) is not the same as the definition of a unit within that dimenson.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #43 on: 25/01/2016 23:23:52 »


frequency = the amount of repeat occurrences
''No.
Frequency is the number of repeat occurances in a given time, usually 1 second.
I'm going to labour this because it is important we get it right.''

I said the same thing , that is a bit nit picking just because I missed time off, and after reading the rest of the post,and Alans post,  frequency is the amount of repeat occurrences in a set amount of distance that we use to measure a rate of time.



The length of one second does not change, the frequency may change but that does not affect the 1 second length.
''Yes, but again subject to what I have just said. So don't say I agree with all your theory.''

I won't say a word on it Colin, you know what you agree with.




*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #44 on: 25/01/2016 23:51:24 »
Let us imagine a journey, let us imagine that we are the Earth and are travelling through a space that contained no other mass but the Earth. Let us time ourselves, relative to space we can not time our journey, there is no other bodies to define points of measurement,


Lets us look back into our journey, we see nothing but blank space, let us look ahead into our journey , we see nothing but blank space, we only see now in this space. There is no history of our journey and no future of our journey.


P.s only just noticed, congrats on being a mod Colin.

« Last Edit: 25/01/2016 23:56:46 by Thebox »

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #45 on: 26/01/2016 00:04:17 »
I said the same thing , that is a bit nit picking just because I missed time off
No, what is missed off is important. If we don't get it 100% right we will always be misunderstanding each other.
If you were owed 100 and were given 10 would you be ok with that? Hey, they only left 0 off so you're being picky.

  frequency is the amount of repeat occurrences in a set amount of distance that we use to measure a rate of time.
No not rate of time. You could say passage of time and be correct. Don't know why you added that because frequency isn't always used to measure time.
If by distance you mean ft, meters etc then no, it has to a unit of time - usually 1 second.
Better would be "frequency is the number of repeat occurrences in a set amount of time"

Edit: my post crossed in time with yours.
Thanks for congrats, but not sure, lots to learn about how to keep spam out etc.
Have a good night, sleep tight etc
« Last Edit: 26/01/2016 00:08:03 by Colin2B »
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #46 on: 26/01/2016 00:22:28 »
I said the same thing , that is a bit nit picking just because I missed time off
No, what is missed off is important. If we don't get it 100% right we will always be misunderstanding each other.
If you were owed 100 and were given 10 would you be ok with that? Hey, they only left 0 off so you're being picky.

  frequency is the amount of repeat occurrences in a set amount of distance that we use to measure a rate of time.
No not rate of time. You could say passage of time and be correct. Don't know why you added that because frequency isn't always used to measure time.
If by distance you mean ft, meters etc then no, it has to a unit of time - usually 1 second.
Better would be "frequency is the number of repeat occurrences in a set amount of time"

Edit: my post crossed in time with yours.
Thanks for congrats, but not sure, lots to learn about how to keep spam out etc.
Have a good night, sleep tight etc

OK, I agree with your points and should not presume the reader automatically knows what I mean, especially if I miss parts out using short versions as such and presuming the reader does not need explanation in their own knowing.

''If by distance you mean ft, meters etc then no, it has to a unit of time - usually 1 second.''

Anything after 0 is a ''distance''


01


How can you measure 1 second without having something relative distance wise to measure a ''distance''?

A clock second finger on a mechanical clock does work ,

A Caesium frequency does work.

A sundial even has movement over a distance of degree.


According to my maths 1 second is equal to 0.277 mile based on the origin of time and relative to the suns and earth's motion?

Presently the speed of time is 1035 mph?

This 1 second length then used to measure the cycles of the Caesium, so we could then use the cycles to represent 1 second because of the said stability of the constant of the Caesium which turns out to be a ''broken clock'' that has a variance,


Thank you good night.







« Last Edit: 26/01/2016 00:24:30 by Thebox »

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #47 on: 26/01/2016 10:58:27 »

According to my maths 1 second is equal to 0.277 mile based on the origin of time and relative to the suns and earth's motion?

Presently the speed of time is 1035 mph?
Did you use the circumference at the equator?
The second came into use with the development of mechanical clocks in Europe which lies latitude 40-50. At this latitude the circumference of a small circle is less than that of the equator, so the speed of light will be slower.
As you go north the small circles of latitude get smaller still, so as you approach the North Pole the speed of light will -> 0. So you have shown that the speed of light is not a constant, bet Einstein wishes he'd known that it would have saved a lot of thinking.
The current measurement of light speed is 671 million miles/hr compared to your 1035mph. This means that the circumference of the earth was a lot, lot bigger when it was measured in the 1800s.
We seem to have lost a lot of earth somewhere, any ideas?
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3258
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #48 on: 26/01/2016 11:18:46 »

According to my maths 1 second is equal to 0.277 mile based on the origin of time and relative to the suns and earth's motion?

Presently the speed of time is 1035 mph?
Did you use the circumference at the equator?
The second came into use with the development of mechanical clocks in Europe which lies latitude 40-50. At this latitude the circumference of a small circle is less than that of the equator, so the speed of light will be slower.
As you go north the small circles of latitude get smaller still, so as you approach the North Pole the speed of light will -> 0. So you have shown that the speed of light is not a constant, bet Einstein wishes he'd known that it would have saved a lot of thinking.
The current measurement of light speed is 671 million miles/hr compared to your 1035mph. This means that the circumference of the earth was a lot, lot bigger when it was measured in the 1800s.
We seem to have lost a lot of earth somewhere, any ideas?


Yes I used the equator and was referring before mechanical clocks, reference ancient Egypt and sundials. A mechanical clock had a reference of 1 second from somewhere.   

I am unsure how 1035 mph of the Earth's spin has anything to do with the speed of light?  and how exactly have i proved the speed of light is a variant? (caesium clocks?) or zero speed because of the cancelling out?


How does something get smaller? relatively it moves away.

Am I causing trouble in science  , if so I will leave on your request?

or you are being sarcastic or I am misunderstanding or you are misunderstanding.


hope I haven't broke anything for real..

added - I am worried now, should I be?

« Last Edit: 26/01/2016 11:56:30 by Thebox »

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2089
    • View Profile
Re: What is the rate of future time?
« Reply #49 on: 26/01/2016 13:10:26 »
Yes I used the equator .....
I am unsure how 1035 mph of the Earth's spin has anything to do with the speed of light? 
Sorry, my misunderstanding of what 'speed of time' meant. This is why it ismportant to get understanding clear.
The 'speed of time' ie the rate at which time passes will affect the measurement of the speed of light, especially if it changes.

and how exactly have i proved the speed of light is a variant?
If you have calculated the 'speed of time' dependant on a specific circumference, that speed will change with circumference.
At Latitude 50 the distance travelled in a day, by a point on the surface, is less than that at the equator (unless you believe in a flat earth). So at that latitude the speed of time will be faster as it has a shorter distance to travel each day. Because of that the speed of light will change with latitude.

How does something get smaller? relatively it moves away.
The distance travelled around the earth on lines of latitude decreases the further north you go - look at a globe.

Am I causing trouble in science  , if so I will leave on your request?
You won't cause science any problems I assure you  [;)]
No one wants you to leave, just learn.

or you are being sarcastic or I am misunderstanding or you are misunderstanding.
Although I misunderstood the 'speed of time', I was not being sarcastic but just working out the consequences of using the equator as your distance. The effects I described still take place, and the 'speed of time' and the speed of light would vary between equator and the poles.

hope I haven't broke anything for real..

added - I am worried now, should I be?
Don't worry, I doubt if your theory will bring the end of the world much further forward  [:)]
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.