0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Goc has misconstrued the concept of unambiguous measurements. It does not equate to an absolute reference frame. It simply means that a measurement made in one context can be reliably transposed to another. It requires a common factor, which is light speed in the case of SR.
Quote from: Mike Gale on 31/03/2017 02:31:01To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, the speed of time is one second per second or one year per year or whatever unit of time per whatever unit of time. Einstein taught us that my seconds (or years or whatever) are not necessarily the same as yours so the real question is how they differ. SR answers that question and it all boils down to one's perception of light speed, which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.Einstein suggested all views are equally valid. Interestingly enough this allows that no view is valid. Each frame has its own measuring stick. When everyone measures with their own measuring stick we obtain many different values. There is no valid view same as there is no standard time.Quotewhich is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space. Your time and distance changes for every different frame. If you change your frame your tick rate and measuring stick change equally to measure the same speed of light. Your measuring the speed of light not unambiguous distances.
To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, the speed of time is one second per second or one year per year or whatever unit of time per whatever unit of time. Einstein taught us that my seconds (or years or whatever) are not necessarily the same as yours so the real question is how they differ. SR answers that question and it all boils down to one's perception of light speed, which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.
which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.
You are a legend in your own mind.
Quote from: Mike Gale on 01/04/2017 03:53:14Goc has misconstrued the concept of unambiguous measurements. It does not equate to an absolute reference frame. It simply means that a measurement made in one context can be reliably transposed to another. It requires a common factor, which is light speed in the case of SR.I agree there is no absolute reference frame. How and where did you read anything I said to suggest one? There is only one ratio between frames with relativity math giving that ratio of observed effects accurately.Quote from: GoC on 31/03/2017 13:25:47Quote from: Mike Gale on 31/03/2017 02:31:01To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, the speed of time is one second per second or one year per year or whatever unit of time per whatever unit of time. Einstein taught us that my seconds (or years or whatever) are not necessarily the same as yours so the real question is how they differ. SR answers that question and it all boils down to one's perception of light speed, which is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space.Einstein suggested all views are equally valid. Interestingly enough this allows that no view is valid. Each frame has its own measuring stick. When everyone measures with their own measuring stick we obtain many different values. There is no valid view same as there is no standard time.Quotewhich is the only unambiguous way to measure distances in space. Your time and distance changes for every different frame. If you change your frame your tick rate and measuring stick change equally to measure the same speed of light. Your measuring the speed of light not unambiguous distances.If your time changes physically than your measuring devise has to change physically to measure the same speed of light in every frame. You measure the speed of light with your new measuring stick distance. The distance measured is different between frames. The distance measured is different while the speed of light is measured to be the same.There is no preferred frame. The measured speed of light is unambiguous. The distance measured is ambiguous.Time and distance are always related as a ratio. How you interpret meaning has to be properly defined. There is no time without motion c.
Goc the absolute reference frame is observable space.
jef: Any object that moves away from you falls into the past. Not only does time slow down for the object, but also because of the nature of light we observe the object falling into the past.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/04/2017 21:04:04Goc the absolute reference frame is observable space.We do not observe space.Quote from: Thebox on 01/04/2017 21:55:33jef: Any object that moves away from you falls into the past. Not only does time slow down for the object, but also because of the nature of light we observe the object falling into the past.We do not ever observe the present. All observations are from the past by the amount of time light takes to reach your peeps
Quote from: Mike Gale on 01/04/2017 06:40:19You are a legend in your own mind.I am a nobody in my mind, I noticed you avoid the question.
Of course we observe space , what makes you think we do not?
Quote from: Thebox on 02/04/2017 14:32:20Of course we observe space , what makes you think we do not?Space and time are meaningless in the absence of observers and light. Imagine yourself alone in the universe. How would you measure time and space? The answer is you can't. You need another observer and a means of communication.
The temporal distance from the present to the immediate past is arbitrarily small.
We may be arguing across one another. When you say that we observe space or time, you mean that we observe objects in space and time. It's an important distinction because space and time are abstractions, not tangible objects. That was the point Jeffrey was trying to make.
Quote from: Mike Gale on 03/04/2017 23:53:12We may be arguing across one another. When you say that we observe space or time, you mean that we observe objects in space and time. It's an important distinction because space and time are abstractions, not tangible objects. That was the point Jeffrey was trying to make.No, I mean we observe space, we can measure space.
Quote from: Thebox on 04/04/2017 01:29:51Quote from: Mike Gale on 03/04/2017 23:53:12We may be arguing across one another. When you say that we observe space or time, you mean that we observe objects in space and time. It's an important distinction because space and time are abstractions, not tangible objects. That was the point Jeffrey was trying to make.No, I mean we observe space, we can measure space. How?
Speed of time is like this: 0+0+0+0+0+0 = (+) is C / 0 is our present frameWhat for us looks and feels like a fluid reality such as "0000000000" with no delay, can be actually 0(c)0(c)0(c)