[timey (OP)]

Actually you have made me doubt myself a bit there.
If the space clock views 30 seconds of cinema time go by for every minute that goes by on his clock, then the movie would take 2 hours to watch.
If the cinema clock views 1 minute of the space clock time go by for every 30 seconds that goes by on the cinema clock, then the movie when playing in the higher gravity potential would take half hour for cinama guy to watch.
Getting my b and d's the wrong way round again (chuckle)
Either way round, the observation of what one will see of the other is what is being discussed with respect to a proportional observation.

If the space clock watches a movie that is being played frame by frame at the cinema below where 2 of his space hours are required for the movie to complete, then because the light from the movie screen is being generated at a rate of time twice as long as his own, will he observe that there are gaps between each frame?
If the cinema guy watched the movie being played at the space clock's location, would the cinama guy observe every other frame to be missing?

[Colin2B]

If the space clock watches a movie that is being played frame by frame at the cinema below where 2 of his space hours are required for the movie to complete, then because the light from the movie screen is being generated at a rate of time twice as long as his own, will he observe that there are gaps between each frame?
If the cinema guy watched the movie being played at the space clock's location, would the cinama guy observe every other frame to be missing?

There is no reason why there should be gaps or frames missing. Depending on which way round the playing/viewing is taking place - and yes it's easy to get mixed up - then one will see the film in slow motion the other as speeded up. Of course you will likely have some optical effect e.g. Blurring if the viewing were too fast, or the ability to see individual frames if seen too slow.

[alancalverd]

The astronaut will see the movie playing at 12.5 frames per space second instead of 25 or whatever the current movie rate is (I'm pretty sure that all major cinemas now use digital 100 fps).

[timey (OP)]

Ok - forget the movie, just get cinema guy to walk up and down in front of the floodlit screen at 10 repetitions per minute.

Will the observer guy with the space clock observe the walking action smoothly, or will the action appear as if there are gaps between each movement.
Get the guy with the space clock to walk up and down in front of his floodlit movie screen at 10 repetitions per minute, will cinema guy observe that action is missing?

Try increasing the time shift so that we are looking at a greater difference in rate of time.  Let's say the ratios are 9 seconds to 1, and that the cinema guy is viewing only 1 out of every 10 seconds of observer dude with the space clock's time...
And that observer dude is only viewing 1 of every 10 seconds of cinema guy's time...
What will each observe of the other walking up and down in front of their floodlit movie screen at 10 repetitions a minute?

[Colin2B]

Continuous, no gaps. Either 10s compressed into 1 or 1 expanded to 10, whatever the ratios are.
Remember time is continuous, not limited to specific blocks, if we have 10s we can subdivide it into ms, ps etc.

[timey (OP)]

If the space clock watches a movie that is being played frame by frame at the cinema below where 2 of his space hours are required for the movie to complete, then because the light from the movie screen is being generated at a rate of time twice as long as his own, will he observe that there are gaps between each frame?
If the cinema guy watched the movie being played at the space clock's location, would the cinama guy observe every other frame to be missing?

There is no reason why there should be gaps or frames missing. Depending on which way round the playing/viewing is taking place - and yes it's easy to get mixed up - then one will see the film in slow motion the other as speeded up. Of course you will likely have some optical effect e.g. Blurring if the viewing were too fast, or the ability to see individual frames if seen too slow.

Missed this post at first.
Yes Colin, and to clarify this away from pixel size or high def, slow motion production, or other movie tech, I now have the person with each clock walking up and down in front of the floodlit movie screens at 10 repetitions a minute.  I've upped the difference in rate of time so that each observes of the other 1 second out of 10.  What do the observations look like now?

The dude with the space clock will observe bigger gaps between each movement the cinema guy makes, and the cinema guy will observe more action missing from the motion of the dude with the space clock.
Here, despite the difference in rates of time, we are managing to maintain the concept of a common 'now' or 'present' for both rates of time.


In reply to your recent post, yes of course, and I'm only using bigger chunks to illustrate.  But it is possible to state a percentage of the time passing elsewhere as being proportionally unobservable from a differing rate of time.

[Mike Gale]

Momentum is nothing more or less than the product of mass times velocity.

That's overly simplistic. Light has momentum, but it has no mass. Einstein's definition is E²=m²c⁴+p²c². This reduces to p=mv if v<<c and m>0 and E=mc²+mv²/2.

[Colin2B]

But it is possible to state a percentage of the time passing elsewhere as being proportionally unobservable from a differing rate of time.

Sorry, I'm not really understanding 'proportionally unobservable'. What makes it unobservable?
The way I look at it is that time 'records' in infinite detail in one location - like the high speed camera - and then plays back in slow motion in the other. But it is a perfect camera so no frame rate, etc. Not the best analogy, but perhaps you see how I'm thinking.
Can you explain why you see (or rather don't see) missing information.

[timey (OP)]

Ok - I will give several analogies, but again this thread might want to get moved to New Theories.  I am straying from the beaten track here somewhat...

Stain glass:
Light is filtered through a stain glass and what we see is the light missing information.
If we view time as being a filter, then that filter value is established by the difference in rate of time between observer and observation, and the information received by observer of the observation is filtered to that value.  The information received is proportional to the time difference.

Black hole:
Time is extreme in and near a black hole.
(My model holds a different view that time runs faster near mass in space, but that m in relation to the M of black hole will experience their time as running slower as m's proximity to black hole increases, but either my view or current view renders the black holes time as extreme.)
Because the time difference between observer and observed is so extreme we don't view hardly anything at-all.
Add mass to a black hole and the temperature of the black hole reduces inversely proportional to added mass.  The time difference has been made more extreme by adding mass, and the observer observes proportionally less of the black holes heat activity.

But this involves great distances which throw observation into the realm of the information having taken a period of time to arrive at one's position of observation.
I am trying to give indication of differing rates of time having a commonly experienced 'now' or 'present'.
This is important because otherwise differing parts of the universe will be ahead, or behind each other in sequential time and each will be experiencing a different notion of what the present moment is.
My idea is that time can run faster or slower for any phenomenon due to the energy level it has, but that all rates of time occur simultaneously to each other where it then becomes a matter of a proportional viewing of one rate of time of another.

Light emissions:
Add temperature energy to the black body and the black body will start emitting photons.  The more temperature that is added, the higher the frequency of the photons.
My model states time as being energy related.  Adding energy to the molecules of the black body causes the time to speed up for the m molecules/atoms of the black body and photons are subsequently emitted with shorter wave lengths.  The wave lengths are directly time related as to the rate of time the emitting body is is oscillating at, and the frequency of the light changes as the proportion of time difference between observer and observed becomes first less acute as visible light frequencies are achieved, and then more acute as light frequencies escalate into the ultraviolet region.
Calculate these emitted frequencies as per the time increases of the emitting body, caused by adding energy to the emitting body, and Planck's h constant is related to these time changes, where quantum then becomes a continuum.
This concept also describes why hot water freezes faster than cold water, and why wavelength=h/p.

When reading my many physics books, when physicists talk about what quantum would look like on a macro scale, they describe ice cubes being inside one's glass in one instant of time, and then outside of the glass in the next instant, with no information being available about the transition.
Or of being able to view a person who was on the other side of a wall appear on this side of the wall with no information being available about the transition.
Or that it can be know that a person can be walking at a certain speed in a direction, but wether they are on this side of the wall or the other remains a mystery.
Quantum then relies on perturbation to predict the transitional information.  ... And perturbation is a time based method...
Add 'a' time based method before the fact and both position and velocity will be calculable simultaneously.

[alancalverd]

If we view time as being a filter,

we don't, because it isn't.

Add temperature energy to the black body and the black body will start emitting photons.  The more temperature that is added, the higher the frequency of the photons.

The higher the maximum frequency. The spectrum remains a continuum to zero energy.

 
This concept also describes why hot water freezes faster than cold water,

And we all thought it was to do with the anomalous convection of water below 4 degC. After all, that's what makes the planet habitable, so it's very important!

and why wavelength=h/p.[

because it's the definintion of h

When reading my many physics books, when physicists talk about what quantum would look like on a macro scale, they describe ice cubes being inside one's glass in one instant of time, and then outside of the glass in the next instant, with no information being available about the transition.
Or of being able to view a person who was on the other side of a wall appear on this side of the wall with no information being available about the transition.
Or that it can be know that a person can be walking at a certain speed in a direction, but wether they are on this side of the wall or the other remains a mystery.
Quantum then relies on perturbation to predict the transitional information.  ... And perturbation is a time based method...
Add 'a' time based method before the fact and both position and velocity will be calculable simultaneously.

  In the words of Eddington, "the student of physics must become accustomed to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast....if he fell through the floor and appeared unscathed in the basement, he would  not be surprised but intrigued at having witnessed a very rare phenomenon."

[timey (OP)]

Physics does not have a comprehensive theory on time other than the fact that it is a measurement of action in sequence.
You, as a physicist have received no education about what allows the universe to result in a phenomenon that affords sequenced action within that universe, this lacking in your education being because this information is not known.
So when you say "we don't, it isn't,"
...where you say "it isn't", you are talking out of your *rse.

Physics knows that water is anomalous, but doesn't fully understand why.
Physics knows Planck h constant is experimentally verified, but doesn't know why.

It's a violation of my common sense that a physicist would so willingly state observation as being outside of the bounds of human understanding...
Smacks of a cop-out to me, in much the same way as saying 'that's just relativity' is a cop-out!

You know when you said you had conversations with your friend Kibblewhite all those years ago...
Did you meet every alternative perspective or suggestion that he put forward by saying 'we don't, it isn't'?
I daresay that a conversation as such would be pretty short lived.  For instance:
Kibblewhite:
'Hey Alan - if we considered that mass fell into a black hole, then a black hole could be giving birth to another universe on the other side of the event horizon'
Alan:
'We don't, it isn't'
Kibblewhite;
'Suit yourself then Alan, how's the radiology going?'

...or is it just me?

[alancalverd]

Time is what separates sequential events. It isn't a filter, because it doesn't absorb, reject, deflect , remove or suppress anything.

You need a chemist to explain why water is anomalous. It's all to do with the hydrogen bond, which  is all to do with quantum mechanics, and is therefore beyond my limited comprehension, apparently. Which is odd, because I've taught it to others, who seemed to understand.

Still, if you don't want help, go ahead and drown. It's a free country. 

[Colin2B]

Ok - I will give several analogies, but again this thread might want to get moved to New Theories.  I am straying from the beaten track here somewhat...

Ok, if you want to discuss how your theory explains time dilation, then happy to move as in your suggestion.

[timey (OP)]

quote Alan:

Time is what separates sequential events.

Yes time is what separates sequential events...
But when you have 1 rate of sequential time separating events in one location viewing another rate of sequential time separating events in another location, events that are separated in a slower rate of time might not all be visible to a person viewing from a faster rate of time that is separating events at a faster rate.
A proportion of the slower times events will be unobservable to the observer who's events are separated at a faster rate, and the same will be true of the faster time being observed by the observer in the slower time, where events are being separated more slowly.
Otherwise, if you have a time that is running much faster in one location than another, past, present, and future become unaligned between locations.
The interpretation that I propose is a proportional observation of events, proportional to the difference in rate of time at observed and observer locations.  This results in a universally common 'now' throughout, and past present and future throughout the universe do not become unaligned.
(I used the word filter in an analogy as an analogous description, not a technical terminology)

I don't think I'm drowning Alan, just floating around experimentally in the water rather than being stuck in the mud, and you have helped me tremendously as you well know, but you are also, in my view, notably resistant to discussion at times, k?

I have never questioned your understanding of quantum or physics in general, you have a degree for goodness sake!
But you cannot teach me about things that physics does not know about because you also don't know about them.  There are a lot of unknowns Alan, and I'm trying to figure stuff out about stuff that physics doesn't know - where-as if you were not so notably resistant at times and over various points, you would indeed be an excellent conversationalist as proven as fact in the times when you have not been notably resistant...

[Colin2B]

Ok - I will give several analogies, but again this thread might want to get moved to New Theories.  I am straying from the beaten track here somewhat...

Stain glass:
Light is filtered through a stain glass and what we see is the light missing information.
If we view time as being a filter, then that filter value is established by the difference in rate of time between observer and observation, and the information received by observer of the observation is filtered to that value.  The information received is proportional to the time difference.

So are you saying that in your theory the viewer sees sequences that run at normal speed, but the total time chopped and some part are lost so that total length eg of a film is shortened to that we would expect it to be in the dilated 'frame'. Which is basically lost information.

[timey (OP)]

That is a way of putting it, but the information isn't lost it just appears quantised. (where Planck's h constant then becomes relevant)
By taking into account the difference in time between observed and observer, one can calculate the information one isn't observing.

[alancalverd]

Otherwise, if you have a time that is running much faster in one location than another, past, present, and future become unaligned between locations.

Independent events in different locations are not "aligned". What we see here is what happened there some time ago. By the time we see a supernova, or even a firework, the event is over. And if "there" is at a lower gravity potential, the time between observed events  is longer than it would have been if the events had occurred here.  So what?

As far as blueshift is concerned, it is clear that if we are standing on a neutron star, events over "there" appear to be happening much more rapidly than they do "here", but as the maximum gravitational potential is zero and the minimum is finite, we still see them in the original sequence.

[timey (OP)]

Clearly - of course events take time to arrive at observation point for an observation of these events, and the events one observes are events that occurred in the past.  Events that are occurring at that location presently would take billions of years (by remit of our clock) to arrive at our location.
That's high school physics.

There is no guarantee that the observation one makes of these past events is not proportional to differences in rates of time, and there is no guarantee that red shift velocities are giving the correct extension of distance over time either.  That's all interpretation of observation, not fact.

It is the time dilation factor and curved space of relativity that give rise to the possibility of wormholes and stretching things a bit more, even time travel Alan.
This is directly due to the notion that different rates of time will ensure that past, present, and futures of locations running at differing rates of time will not be aligned with each other.

"So what?"

Well the differences between having a universally common now and not having one are quite considerable.

[alancalverd]

Well the differences between having a universally common now and not having one are quite considerable.

Only to a philosopher. The rest of us are quite used to hearing about things after they have happened.

[timey (OP)]

I am looking at the cause of action in relation to timing, and that when measuring an event occurring at a differing rate of time via one's own timing, that what one measures will be proportional.

You seem to be talking about viewing events via information that has travelled from a long distance away, whereas the observation is of events that occurred a long time ago.
I thought we covered the fact that I'm not talking about events after the fact, just what observation will be viewed.

And it's clear from my posts that I am also equating this proportional observation concept to physical occurrences happening in the present, at immediate location.  So information delay is minimal.

The concept of a universally common 'now' versus pasts, presents, and futures being unaligned, with portions of the universe being ahead, and others lagging behind is a physics concept and consideration that I have read about in physics books.