Time Does Not Exist

[Maine farmer]

My apologies I misread, events happen you say so time exists.  Do things not happen if we don't time the thing that's happening?  

 

Name one event  or anything you can think up, that you can ''time''.

 

Define the process of what you are actually doing to ''time'' something. 

 

 

I will give you an example

 

 

I and you are about to ''time'' a runner, running around a running track, with stop watches. Both of our stop watches are set at zero time, We synchronise our start by the sound of the starting gun (yes we could be a fraction off each other with  the synchronisation, this does not matter),

 

After 100m we both synchronise a stop. 

 

 

We both show 15 seconds.

 

 

15 seconds is 100m of the runners  history, they started at zero also. 15 seconds also represents our 0m we travelled, but also represents 15 seconds of our history.   We never actually ''timed'' anything, we recorded history. 

 

 

Your position is one of semantics, I think.  What I say is that time is a sequence of events as compared to other sequences of events.  For example, we have a hay baler with basically three different systems working in conjunction to produce bales of hay.  We have the feeder system that picks up the hay and feeds it to the plunger that pushes the hay into the bale chamber, and the tying system that wraps twine around the hay and ties it into neat bales.  These systems need to be synchronized so the different parts of the system don't hit each other and break.  This is done by lining up what are called timing marks.  Time here being dependent on the position of the moving gears, sprockets, and shafts.  No stopwatch needed.  Additionally, the baler has it's own "hour" meter, which is dependent on the movement of the parts of the baler and not on a stopwatch or clock.  From the baler's perspective, when it is parked under a tarp through the winter, time does not exist.(Uunless you really want to get fussy and consider the oxidation of the steel, or thermal expansion and contraction.)

[xyz]

Your position is one of semantics, I think.  What I say is that time is a sequence of events as compared to other sequences of events.  For example, we have a hay baler with basically three different systems working in conjunction to produce bales of hay.  We have the feeder system that picks up the hay and feeds it to the plunger that pushes the hay into the bale chamber, and the tying system that wraps twine around the hay and ties it into neat bales.  These systems need to be synchronized so the different parts of the system don't hit each other and break.  This is done by lining up what are called timing marks.  Time here being dependent on the position of the moving gears, sprockets, and shafts.  No stopwatch needed.  Additionally, the baler has it's own "hour" meter, which is dependent on the movement of the parts of the baler and not on a stopwatch or clock.  From the baler's perspective, when it is parked under a tarp through the winter, time does not exist.(Uunless you really want to get fussy and consider the oxidation of the steel, or thermal expansion and contraction.)

Thank you for your interest in the thread and thank you for your views on time, 

 

To move further into the discussion I need to discuss that objects at light years away are said to be observed in the past, the reason is because light takes time to travel a distance and the observed body is in motion. 

 

However this  can't be true and is one dimensional and one directional thinking. 

 

Scenario - We are observing each other , you are on a distant planet.   I experience my ''now'' and you experience your ''now'', our now's are parallel.  

 

(A)∥ ( :cool:

 

 

The light from (A) travels to ( :cool: and the light from ( :cool: travels to (A)

 

 

 

 

Between (A) and ( :cool: is a distance of space.

 

 

 

 

Relative to observation that space is visual clear, we can see objects through the space.

 

 

So if we then add relative time to the equation and scenario

 

A=0_t→clear← B=0_t

 

 

Relative to the observer A or B, we both observe photons leaving the observed body and arriving at the observer at the same time because the observation through space is clear. We can see photons leaving the observation at the same now moment we see Photons arriving , 

Edited January 21, 2016 by xyz

[Maine farmer]

Thank you for your interest in the thread and thank you for your views on time, 

 

To move further into the discussion I need to discuss that objects at light years away are said to be observed in the past, the reason is because light takes time to travel a distance and the observed body is in motion. 

 

However this  can't be true and is one dimensional and one directional thinking. 

 

Scenario - We are observing each other , you are on a distant planet.   I experience my ''now'' and you experience your ''now'', our now's are parallel.  

 

(A)∥ ( :cool:

 

 

The light from (A) travels to ( :cool: and the light from ( :cool: travels to (A)

 

 

 

 

Between (A) and ( :cool: is a distance of space.

 

 

 

 

Relative to observation that space is visual clear, we can see objects through the space.

 

 

So if we then add relative time to the equation and scenario

 

A=0_t→clear← B=0_t

 

 

Relative to the observer A or B, we both observe photons leaving the observed body and arriving at the observer at the same time because the observation through space is clear. We can see photons leaving the observation at the same now moment we see Photons arriving , 

But that "now moment " would be a past moment by the time it was observed.  

 

Suppose it is a clear day and you want to know what the sun looks at right "now".  You will have to wait roughly 8 minutes and 20 seconds to find out as measured by a standard clock.

 

When you think of it, any event you can observe will have already happened by the time you see it, no matter the distance.

[xyz]

But that "now moment " would be a past moment by the time it was observed.  

 

Suppose it is a clear day and you want to know what the sun looks at right "now".  You will have to wait roughly 8 minutes and 20 seconds to find out as measured by a standard clock.

 

When you think of it, any event you can observe will have already happened by the time you see it, no matter the distance.

I think you may of missed the point in the last post,    I am saying you do not see the object in the past, you see the object in the now, the same now as the observer.  

 

I maybe better explaining in a thought experiment . 

 

Observe any object in your vicinity, we will call the object you are observing- object B.

 

We will define yourself the observer -object A,

 

Object A observes object B

 

Object B observes object A

 

For this thought, we will imagine the distance from A to B is one light year. (it is just easier to work with)

 

A..1Ly..B

 

 

B..1Ly..A

 

The light travels from A to B and takes 1 Ly to arrive at B

 

The light also travels from B to A and takes 1 Ly to arrive at A

 

 

Both journey times are equal because light is constant. 

 

Now science only uses a one way measuring tape, i.e science only considers from B to A of the object you are observing.

 

 

Now consider the object B you are observing, you see that object equally has fast as the object is observing A (you)

 

 

Sort of cancelling each other out. 

 

Now please consider the distance of space of ''1Ly'' between you and the object. 

 

 

You can see the object because the space is relatively clear(like water) , you can see through it. The photons are continuous from B. 

 

 

So although Photons reach your eyes , you can also ''see'' the photons leaving the object B. 

 

Now we simply put in the zero time of A and B

 

 

0................0

 

 

To be honest I had  a chat earlier on a live chat , and a person produced  my thoughts in one sentence with a slight edit from me. 

 

It takes 1000's of light years to travel a straight line, but the mind see's the end point  in the instant of now.

[Maine farmer]

Well, that last sentence sums up your point best. Not sure what to do with it though, except maybe we are living in the moment weather we want  to or not!

[xyz]

Well, that last sentence sums up your point best. Not sure what to do with it though, except maybe we are living in the moment weather we want  to or not!

Well I have started to do this with it, 

 

https://wordpress.com/read/post/feed/19049337/908441909

 

I also hope to show no time dilation

[CraigD]

How do you explain the results of the Hafele and Keating Experiment, which plainly contradict your claim?

The Keating experiment is not a time dilation, consider when ''measuring'' the frequency of the Caesium atom, you are not measuring ''time'' you are measuring a period of history/memory, because anything more than zero/nothing is history/memory.

The Hafele-Keating experiment, and later, similar experiments made with better equipment, compared the amount of elapsed time shown by very accurate clocks traveling at different velocities, finding precise agreement with the time dilation predicted by Special and General Relativity.

 

These experiments used airplanes, because they are the fastest vehicles the experimenters could afford, and ¹³³Cs beam and fountain atomic clocks, because these are the most accurate and precise clocks available, so best capable of measuring the time dilation produced by of the low (compared to the speed of light) speeds the airplanes could produce.

 

The Wikipedia link I gave above has some links to the history of the many experimental confirmation of Relativity, and why it has now become practically universally accepted by scientists.

 

I also hope to show no time dilation

I don’t think it’s useful to argue that there is no relativistic time dilation, because, as every experiment, and practical engineering involving high-precision clocks and relative speed shows it simply, empirically, occurs. Even if we didn’t have a theory that explained it perfectly, the phenomena exist, and are measurable by anyone with adequate equipment.

 

The consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference proves that time dilation does happen and experiments have demonstrated it.

A-wal points out another important reasons that time dilation must exist if one postulates that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, an assumption that is unambiguously an superbly supported by experimental evidence.

 

This is a consequence of simple arithmetic and geometry – though I hesitate to use the adjective “simple”, because even simple geometry isn’t necessarily simple to understand. In my experience, the easiest way of demonstrating this is the “light clock” thought experiment. There are many good internet illustrations of the light clock TE, including this one and this one.

 

You have presented no theory/hypothesis. What predictions does it make?

Another good point.

 

The term “theory” as used in science, has a specific meaning, different than used in ordinary conversation. In ordinary conversation, it’s roughly synonymous with “guess” or “vague idea”. In science, it means an explanation of a wide range of natural phenomena that makes precise predictions that have been confirmed by experiment and observation. In ordinary conversation, one starts with “theory” and ends with “fact”. In science, one starts with “facts” (data) and ends with theory explaining them.

[xyz]

The Hafele-Keating experiment, and later, similar experiments made with better equipment, compared the amount of elapsed time shown by very accurate clocks traveling at different velocities, finding precise agreement with the time dilation predicted by Special and General Relativity.

 

These experiments used airplanes, because they are the fastest vehicles the experimenters could afford, and ¹³³Cs beam and fountain atomic clocks, because these are the most accurate and precise clocks available, so best capable of measuring the time dilation produced by of the low (compared to the speed of light) speeds the airplanes could produce.

 

The Wikipedia link I gave above has some links to the history of the many experimental confirmation of Relativity, and why it has now become practically universally accepted by scientists.

 

I don’t think it’s useful to argue that there is no relativistic time dilation, because, as every experiment, and practical engineering involving high-precision clocks and relative speed shows it simply, empirically, occurs. Even if we didn’t have a theory that explained it perfectly, the phenomena exist, and are measurable by anyone with adequate equipment.

 

A-wal points out another important reasons that time dilation must exist if one postulates that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, an assumption that is unambiguously an superbly supported by experimental evidence.

 

This is a consequence of simple arithmetic and geometry – though I hesitate to use the adjective “simple”, because even simple geometry isn’t necessarily simple to understand. In my experience, the easiest way of demonstrating this is the “light clock” thought experiment. There are many good internet illustrations of the light clock TE, including this one and this one.

 

Another good point.

 

The term “theory” as used in science, has a specific meaning, different than used in ordinary conversation. In ordinary conversation, it’s roughly synonymous with “guess” or “vague idea”. In science, it means an explanation of a wide range of natural phenomena that makes precise predictions that have been confirmed by experiment and observation. In ordinary conversation, one starts with “theory” and ends with “fact”. In science, one starts with “facts” (data) and ends with theory explaining them.

Let us consider measurement, a measurement is the distance between two points. 

 

We always start a measurement at 0 and the measurement result is any value greater than zero. However any measurement greater than 0, is the history of .  We do not measure forward time. 

 

Let us start with the measuring of the speed of light between two points, let us define point A and point B, 

 

let us define an invariant speed of c of the light d/t 

 

let us define distance {d} is equal to 1 light year

 

We have established that from point A to point B the light takes 1LY to travel the distance of space.

 

 

Now we will observe B from the relative position of A, we observe the constant speed of the light of c, we also observer the starting point A from the finishing point B,   We can all agree that the distance between A and B is ''see through'', and the clarity is an invariant, a constant. 

 

So let us say we are observing  object A through the constant-'constant

 

 

Part Five - Defining Constant.

It is worldly accepted that the speed of light is constant to all observers in any reference frame when measured in a vacuum.  When talking Physics, the word constant refers to the speed of light and means that the speed of light is unchanging and can be measured to being the same speed by any observer. However, the speed of light is not infinite but is widely agreed to be finite.  To be clear on our understanding, the constant of light is only constant and unchanged in a vacuum, where as none vacuums with mediums and objects have effect and makes the speed a variate and changing wavelength.  However it is of importance that we understand the word constant has other meanings.

Let us consider colour, relative to us we observe colour , colours are a wave-length of light, a certain frequency that defines the colour we observe. In observation we observe a red apple, the colour of red is constant to all visual observers who are not colour blind. The red is unchanging and remains a constant until it decays and loses it's colour.

Let us now consider gravity, relative to us it is constantly pulling us to the ground.

So in our understanding constant is more than just a constant speed, it is any observation occurring continuously over a period of time.

 

Section Two - Understanding

Part One - Understanding the constant-'constant of light propagating through space.

Light in a vacuum travels at 299 792 458 m / s and is a constant.   Space  is a near perfect vacuum and is ''transparent'' to light, meaning that space allows light to propagate through space unchanging in the constant speed.  Ourselves,  observe a clarity of space in that relatively we can observe distant objects reflecting light and the space between ourselves and the observed object  is not opaque, it is relatively ''see through''.  This observation is relatively constant to all visual observers in any frame of reference that is not in shadow/night.

 

Now let us from a third person view Observe A and B.  Let us define that the constant-'constant remains true for any observer in any reference frame.  

Let us state that both A and B have a starting time of 0.

0...................................................0

please answer the following question,  what is the rate of the future time

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

 

 

 

 

Anything more than 0 is history, 

0=1..

the value of time is zero

0..1

0..0

Zero moves forward and remains zero, 1 is zero, 1 is the distance history between 0 and 1. 

Caesium atoms are not time, therefore a Caesium atom can not effect 0.  

A Caesium atom is used as a clock, clocks run slow if the battery is going flat. 

Edited January 23, 2016 by xyz

[Maine farmer]

Question: What time is it?  Answer: It's now.  I don't see much use to that answer.   Perhaps you mean to say that the only reason we even perceive time is because we have a memory of past events?  Can you put your thoughts into a mathematical formula that can be used to make any predictions?

[xyz]

Question: What time is it?  Answer: It's now.  I don't see much use to that answer.   Perhaps you mean to say that the only reason we even perceive time is because we have a memory of past events?  Can you put your thoughts into a mathematical formula that can be used to make any predictions?

I have been considering the maths and formulas and as yet it is something I am still thinking about and working on.  Yes the only reason is that we perceive time because of memory of past events, however it is a little bit more complex than that alone. 

 

 

The past , future, and now are observed simultaneously, I understand this may be hard to understand .

 

 

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. 

Edited January 25, 2016 by xyz

[NotBrad]

Hello good sirs(?). I would simply like to interject some food for thought. Does time dilation occur within a black hole? Have we physically observed time dilation within a black hole using these scientific clocks? Can we actually retrieve one if we were to throw it into a black hole? Would the results matter if we cannot retrieve them? If the answer is no to any of those questions then the entire concept of time dilation becomes irrelevant quite quickly.

My real question to you is this:

can you stop an object completely, and if you can what would that mean in terms of history and future? What we observe as time dilation does not necessarily have to actually be that which we believe it to be. Have any of you gone back in time? How can you disprove his concepts of reality with the interpretations of experiments being entirely dependent on unproven(albeit reasonable) theories?

[xyz]

Hello good sirs(?). I would simply like to interject some food for thought. Does time dilation occur within a black hole? Have we physically observed time dilation within a black hole using these scientific clocks? Can we actually retrieve one if we were to throw it into a black hole? Would the results matter if we cannot retrieve them? If the answer is no to any of those questions then the entire concept of time dilation becomes irrelevant quite quickly.

My real question to you is this:

can you stop an object completely, and if you can what would that mean in terms of history and future? What we observe as time dilation does not necessarily have to actually be that which we believe it to be. Have any of you gone back in time? How can you disprove his concepts of reality with the interpretations of experiments being entirely dependent on unproven(albeit reasonable) theories?

They would need to prove my axioms to be false, and we all know axiom's can not be proved to be false. 

 

Therefore sometimes the illogical answer that is left, it the only logical answer no matter how strange it sounds. 

 

I am starting to get part agreement elsewhere after long discussions. 

 

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.

 

And relatively speaking, I have the advantage of ''going'' back in time, relative to myself when I started science I knew nothing, relative to me I started with the beginning and knew very little of your thoughts.   This allows me an absolute open mind, I had to think for myself and try to work things out myself, all's I can say, is Einstein ''told'' me most of this, this is what he ''said'' to me relatively speaking to my history of learning. 

 

From the first moment about 6 years ago I heard for the first time the term ''white light'' and the term ''constant'' of light, instantly I understood this to be a ''clear'' constant-'constant. I knew then I could see now, I could see the past, and I could see the future simultaneously, because the constant-'constant allows me this. 

 

However explaining my thoughts and to get this far in explanation took some learning. I originally started trying to explain light is transparent, then I tried to explain it was space and darkness that is transparent, then I learnt about xyz because of my own poker theory, now I have changed my approach because I simply have more knowledge and it is getting easier by the day to discourse this knowledge.  

Edited January 26, 2016 by xyz

[NotBrad]

Here is a relatively self contained argument regarding time. I believe it parallels and mirrors the thoughts presented by xyz in a few contexts. If we were to ask a dictionary to define "time" it would return a response such as this:

noun/verb

 

1. 1.

   the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
2. 2.

   a point of time as measured in hours and minutes past midnight or noon.

    

1. 3.

   plan, schedule, or arrange when (something) should happen or be done.

    
2. 4.

   measure the time taken by (a process or activity, or a person doing it).

    

Now, assuming that these are the correct definitions of time, and these are the correct literal interpretations as presented within both your own words and those of xyz, we can begin with explaining the very tricky topic of time.

 

If we think of time as a linear relationship between two simultaneous actions that can be observed simultaneously and then compared, we are not observing an independent phenomenon that deserves independent identification on a scientific basis. The creation of time is a simple practical addition for improved organization and time management that was invented solely to accommodate the rotation of the earth and the velocity of the earth around the sun. If you compare the two events there would appear to be a relationship between them because we can observe said relationship. But we are unwittingly comparing a third event to the first two; our internal clock. Now the presence of the third relationship has no real impact on observable time because we are already observing the first two events to perceive our time. 

 

Now just for arguments sake, what if I told you that right now the entire universe is moving at 0.9c, would we still be able to notice "time" dilation(assuming it exists) that is caused by additional acceleration that is added in the same direction?(0.0° from the net velocity) could we even prove it? Does would it matter if the universe is moving at 0.9c or 0.01c? If "time" dilation is actually an inversely proportional relationship our perception of events that have occurred remain unaltered due to the fact that they are equally dilated. So assuming this is all true, there is only one question left; how can we prove that "time" is an actual thing? We can't, and the reason for that is because if we move at the speed of light, time stops(according to relativity). which means that it does not exist independently of the displacement of any specific object. In order for "time" to exist it must be a standalone value that is not dependent on anything else. According to google there are 3.154e+7 seconds in a year, and you can say that a caesium clock tells me that one second is equal to 9,192,631,770Hz, but Hz by definition is cycles per second. If you then do some simple math it goes something like this:

 

1_s=9,192,631,770/1

So according to this model, 1=9,192,631,770

Does that make any sense? No. And so, mic dropped.

Edited January 26, 2016 by NotBrad

[xyz]

Here is a relatively self contained argument regarding time. I believe it parallels and mirrors the thoughts presented by xyz in a few contexts. If we were to ask a dictionary to define "time" it would return a response such as this:

noun/verb

 

1. 1.

   the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
2. 2.

   a point of time as measured in hours and minutes past midnight or noon.

    

1. 3.

   plan, schedule, or arrange when (something) should happen or be done.

    
2. 4.

   measure the time taken by (a process or activity, or a person doing it).

    

Now, assuming that these are the correct definitions of time, and these are the correct literal interpretations as presented within both your own words and those of xyz, we can begin with explaining the very tricky topic of time.

 

If we think of time as a linear relationship between two simultaneous actions that can be observed simultaneously and then compared, we are not observing an independent phenomenon that deserves independent identification on a scientific basis. The creation of time is a simple practical addition for improved organization and time management that was invented solely to accommodate the rotation of the earth and the velocity of the earth around the sun. If you compare the two events there would appear to be a relationship between them because we can observe said relationship. But we are unwittingly comparing a third event to the first two; our internal clock. Now the presence of the third relationship has no real impact on observable time because we are already observing the first two events to perceive our time. 

 

Now just for arguments sake, what if I told you that right now the entire universe is moving at 0.9c, would we still be able to notice "time" dilation(assuming it exists) that is caused by additional acceleration that is added in the same direction?(0.0° from the net velocity) could we even prove it? Does would it matter if the universe is moving at 0.9c or 0.01c? If "time" dilation is actually an inversely proportional relationship our perception of events that have occurred remain unaltered due to the fact that they are equally dilated. So assuming this is all true, there is only one question left; how can we prove that "time" is an actual thing? We can't, and the reason for that is because if we move at the speed of light, time stops(according to relativity). which means that it does not exist independently of the displacement of any specific object. In order for "time" to exist it must be a standalone value that is not dependent on anything else. According to google there are 3.154e+7 seconds in a year, and you can say that a caesium clock tells me that one second is equal to 9,192,631,770Hz, but Hz by definition is cycles per second. If you then do some simple math it goes something like this:

 

1_s=9,192,631,770/1

So according to this model, 1=9,192,631,770

Does that make any sense? No. And so, mic dropped.

yes your post makes sense to me, the problem is seemingly the constant of c, is not a constant,   a rate of cycles per second changing is a change of what you are measuring, in caesium terms, the measuring of the light frequency rate over 1 second period. 

 

1=9,192,631,770=0.277mile=1035mph 

[NotBrad]

yes your post makes sense to me, the problem is seemingly the constant of c, is not a constant,   a rate of cycles per second changing is a change of what you are measuring, in caesium terms, the measuring of the light frequency rate over 1 second period. 

 

1=9,192,631,770=0.277mile=1035mph 

But even in this instance the base value(1035mph) is still a velocity over a period, meaning that we cannot divide out the velocity component.

[xyz]

But even in this instance the base value(1035mph) is still a velocity over a period, meaning that we cannot divide out the velocity component.

Hi Brad, consider the base value ''1035mph''  was a velocity that at this time in history had no period, the base was to create a period of one second.   When history thought about the measurement of time, they never considered that relatively using Sun dials and primitive means, they were measuring a velocity and not really measuring time. Presently the relation between time and velocity is the same thing, 24 hrs equals the earth's velocity relative to the sun's velocity. 

 

mph came much later  than the measuring of time, time was needed to devise mph. 

 

Consider it this way, imagine I and you are back in history, we decide to measure time using the earths rotation relative to the sun, at this time we have no time , we have no speed or velocity.   I and you define 24 hrs for one cycle and define a unit of time of seconds.

 

 

Now imagine I and you are now in the future slightly but are a different us. I and you want to know how fast the Earth spins, so I and you decide to measure this using the new formed time. 

 

 

 

 

we conclude 1035 mph  based on the same base.   

 

 

did we just measure speed, or did we just measure the speed of time?

 

I think we measured the speed of time ''again'' relative to a clock speed of course. 

 

take two identical value clocks, the earth clock speed and the caesium clock speed, now if the earth clock speed slowed down, relatively the earth's rotation would slow down, do you think this affects time?

 

If the earth rotated at 517.5 mph the second would be twice as long and we would have a 48 hr day. 

 

I have just slowed down time to half the present rate by using relative velocity. Time dilation tries this illusion of the same thing, it is a cheap parlour trick ..

Edited January 28, 2016 by xyz

[CraigD]

did we just measure speed, or did we just measure the speed of time?

This thread seems to have wandered back to xyz’s old strange claim about the SI definition of the second somehow implying that “the speed of light is faster than time itself”. As I explained in this post, this view arises from a simple unit error. Speed has dimension LT^-1, time T, so the phrase “the speed of time” is physically nonsensical.

 

take two identical value clocks, the earth clock speed and the caesium clock speed, now if the earth clock speed slowed down, relatively the earth's rotation would slow down, do you think this affects time?

No. Changes in the Earth’s rate of rotation have no effect on the passage of time.

 

Due to the many forces that act on the Earth, its rotation rate varies constantly, and long-term, decreases steadily. This is one of the reasons it’s no longer considered an acceptable clock for defining a standard unit of time for high-precision measurements.

 

The current clock-based SI definition of the second uses a count of the transition between the 2 hyperfine levels of the ground state of ¹³³Cs atoms carefully contained in atomic clocks. Because fewer external forces act on these atoms, these “tick” rate of these atomic clocks of 9192631770 per second varies less than that of less acceptable clocks like the Earth, common quartz crystal clocks, mechanical pendulum and spring clocks, etc.

 

¹³³Cs atomic clocks are still not perfectly precise, but they are a mature technology, the best that can currently be built. More accurate atomic clock using different atoms are a subject of intense scientific and technological interest, especially ones with much higher “tick” rates corresponding to the optical EM range rather than Cs’s microwave radio range. The future best clock-based standard may be a ¹⁷¹Yb atomic clock with a “tick rate” on the order of 50,000,000 times greater than a ¹³³Cs one.

 

Such a clock can measure gravitational time dilation due to differences in height as small as 2 cm near the surface of the Earth!

 

If the earth rotated at 517.5 mph the second would be twice as long and we would have a 48 hr day.

You could, in principle, slow the Earth’s period of rotation to 1 per 48 hours, via a super-engineering scheme involving meteorite bombardment, super-stong materials and rockets, etc, or by just waiting (about 2,700,000,000 years). This would have no more effect on the length of the second, or any other standard unit of time, then changing the settings of a mechanical clock to run at one half its usual rate.

 

I have just slowed down time to half the present rate by using relative velocity. Time dilation tries this illusion of the same thing, it is a cheap parlour trick ..

I think this statement shows a common misunderstanding of the theory of special relativity, one I’ve seen many times in students in introductory physics classes.

 

Time dilation doesn’t arise because moving makes clocks run slower by somehow adjusting their mechanisms the ways a clockmaker (or our fictional Earth-slowing super-engineer) can. Time dilation is the passage of time as measured by accurate clocks being different than that measured by equally accurate clocks with different velocities.

 

The predictions and experimental verifications of the predictions of Special relativity are not “cheap parlor tricks.” Xyz, can you find a a credible scientific source supporting the claim that they are :QuestionM: