Speed of time!

geetpurwar · Feb 22, 2005

Hey can anyone calculate the rate at which the time is passing.....coz we can measure how much time has passed but cannot that at which rate it is passing?Have a chat at this post.............

cygnusx1111 · Feb 22, 2005

The 'rate' of time is believed to be constant. All evidence show this to be the case. Basic physics treats time this way. It gets a little muddier in QM. Take some physics classes.

vogon13 · Feb 22, 2005

Had a discussion with someone recently about how fast 'Gods' clock ticks, or whether it ticks at all (like subsequent intervals of time so finely graduated as to be continuous, or are there descrete events sequentially arranged). Not sure how to design an experiment to discern the two cases. Appreciate speculation (wild and otherwise) on this topic. Thanx <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

nacnud · Feb 22, 2005

Currently the measured rate of time is one second per second

Saiph · Feb 22, 2005

a person always measures it, for themselves, to pass at 1 second per second. How they measure time passing for another person, depends on the relative velocities between the to people, and any acceleration (or gravity) present. If they're moving, their time will move slower. Whoever is experiencing the acceleration will have time pass slower (they will always measure it as 1 second per second) which is the only way you'll measure someone's time to be passing faster than you're own (you are accelerating, they are not). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mooware · Feb 22, 2005

Yep, measurement of time is all relative.

alkalin · Feb 22, 2005

Now when time is approaching the speed of light, then you may have a few problems, such as space might begin to curl due to the heat of friction, and matter degenerates into many strings. Demonally, this amounts to a whole new universe of time, space, and matter constants that are totally different from ours. So this virtual time might be viewed as a nascar race, space might be aches and pains of the loser, and matter might be time in jail. Sorry if I sound a little like archy bunker here, but it just seemed to click at the time I wrote it. Lets see, exactly what time was that? This is getting even better than the wabbit hunt.

spayss · Feb 23, 2005

We don't even have an accepted definition of time or agreement that time exists at all. The speed? The speed of what?

siarad · Feb 23, 2005

If you were accelerating linearly you'd have to keep throttling back as each second is shorter or does the motor produce less & less power due to it's time slowing i.e. the chemical reaction slows. That chemical problem would be at variance with theory which says everything happens the same everywhere. To an outside observer your linear acceleration would appear to increase asymptotically. Have any experiments been done to show this as we seem to rely entirely on atomic clocks, which is really imprinting our notion of time on an object to meet our criteria & not a true measurement of time. In any event atomic clocks slow with linear motion so chemical actions, if my first paragraph is true, would be slowing everywhere compared to us.

Saiph · Feb 23, 2005

the reaction rate of the accelerating rocket engine would appear to slow down to us, the "stationary" observer. Their acceleration would also slow. Atomic clocks are accurate ways of measuring time, I don't see how it is not a true measurement. Each cycle of the atoms in question take the same amount of time. By counting the cycles we can know how much time has passed. I could also argue that a ruler is not an accurate measurement of distance, as we are imprinting our notion of distance on an object to meet our criteria. The length of the ruler then, would not be an accurate measurement of distance. In either case, distance or time, you find a standard, something that does not vary. And use repeated applications of it to find the total magnitude. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

siarad · Feb 23, 2005

We know a ruler exists but not time, it may be apparent simply 'cos we have memory. I was asking for an alternative means of it's measurement still fitting current theory. Galaxies moving away from us must have continuously slowing chemical reactions but I keep reading it's not so. Further I don't like the explanations of red shift but slowed time would seem better to account for it. The continuously slowing time would cause a deepening red shift even at constant speed so the Universe may not be accelerating

Saiph · Feb 23, 2005

the deepening redshift isn't used to find the accelerating universe, the magnitude of distant supernovae is. We know the ruler exists, but how about distance? It's just as abstracted as time. Indeed, it is intimately related to time according to GR. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

oceanbear · Feb 23, 2005

Time has no "time" it just is. Consult "The End of Time" by Julian Barbour. Time is a series of "Nows" and there is neither past or future but rather a voyage along a path of "Nows" Does 5.4 x 10-34 secs. sound familar?

newtonian · Feb 24, 2005

geetpurwar - First, my personal definition of time: Time: the medium through which cause and effect flow. Now, we measure time in units- such as seconds, etc. Time is observed, and it is real. In fact, time is in the following famous formula: e=mc^2 That is because c is the speed of light, and speed is distance (in units) per time (in units). That involves the theory of relativity and time is indeed relative. God, for example, has a totally different concept of time than we humans do, which I will document: (Psalm 90:4) ". . .For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night." That was written by Moses about 1513 BCE (according to a popular calendar of time). At that time a watch during the night was typically 4 hours. (2 Peter 3:8-9) ". . .However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." Notice that as a result of this different concept of time, what we consider slow is not what God considers slow. Also, generally older humans find that time passes faster for them, in their perception, than when they were very young. I am not sure, but I believe there is a mathematical basis for this, as follows: When you are 4 years old, one year is 25% of your life - hence one year is more important and passes more slowly. When you are five, one year is now only 20% of your life. When you are 10, one year is only 10% of your life. When you are 20, one year is only 5% of your life. When you are 50, one year is only 2% of your life. When you are 100, one year is

newtonian · Feb 24, 2005

vogon13 - Please see my above post where I addressed your interest in God's concept of time. Clearly, according to the Bible God does experience time. And appropriately so, since God's name, Jehovah, is derived from a causative form to the Hebrew verb hawah, to be, and means He causes to be. Since time is the medium through which cause and effect flows, God causes to be during time. However, that would be primordial time, not our universe specific space-time.. For example, God caused our universe to be, by cause and effect, during primordial time before our space-time existed.

igorsboss · Feb 24, 2005

I just measured it. I get a much larger figure than nacund did. I measured 60 seconds per minute, a much larger number. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

kmarinas86 · Feb 24, 2005

The time is right now, here - the present. Not in the past and not in the future. The speed of time really is the speed of "right here, right now". Time dilation happens because mass slows down the "right here, right now" around it. Change of time "right here, right now" is function of what's happening with things "right here, right now". In the equation E=mc² Energy is proportional to mass times change of "right here, right now"

Saiph · Feb 24, 2005

<hr />times change of "right here, right now" <hr /> Umm...no, that would be the speed of light squared, or m^2/s^2. That doesn't give you time. Anyway, time dilation does not factor into E=mc^2. It factors into the kinetic energy equations, but not the mass energy equivalency equation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

kmarinas86 · Feb 24, 2005

Time dilation happens because mass slows down the "right here, right now" around it. oops... Make that a moving mass. Change of time "right here, right now" is function of what's happening with things "right here, right now". Ok, simply because the speed of light through a dense medium is slower does not mean that the Energy equivilancy changes! err... ok. anywayz..

Saiph · Feb 24, 2005

right, it doesn't change the energy to mass ratio. that's because C is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Speed of time!

geetpurwar

Guest

cygnusx1111

Guest

vogon13

Guest

nacnud

Guest

Saiph

Guest

mooware

Guest

alkalin

Guest

spayss

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

siarad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

oceanbear

Guest

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

igorsboss

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page