Maxila

If you wrote this you must have brain activity (motion) without it you could not experience the duration. It's easy, and intuitive, to think of duration as motionless when the motion is hidden from direct view. It was the motions of your brain actitivy compared to the motionless body (sitting) that gave you the experience of duration. No different than measuring the state of temperature duration to the motion of a clock or your brain activity while watching it.

Empirically the answer to that question is as definitive and self-evident as any axiom can be, in the maths of GR and QM the answer is enigmatic. I'll only speak empirically since it is definitive and that may be of some help. In any way it can be directly observed time is a measure of a change of position relative to distance. All clocks including cesium clocks (currently the worlds time standard), use an increment of motion to measure a "period" or "duration" of time. Observation-ally time, and speed or velocity (speed of a vector), are coincident and reciprocal as the measure of a change in position within a distance, i.e. t=x/s as s=x/t, they are two ways to describe the same change within a distance. This may be easiest to see in arguably mans first clock the Earth's rotation. We assign a time value 1 day to a single rotation, that rotation is just an increment of a change in position (one rotation), the same principle used by the most advanced clocks today. When you observe one rotation you see the duration (1 day), with the speed as coincident and reciprocal within the distance changed, at the equator or any latitude. You may also notice the time value (in this case 1 day) is a proportional ratio of x/s where they also equal 1, if you observed two days than the ratio of x/s would be 2/1 at every latitude, etc. I've linked a few references to cesium clocks that might be helpful: (Section) 18.2 … "Time is kept by observing and counting the frequencies at which electromagnetic energy is emitted or absorbed by the atoms. In essence, the atom serves as a pendulum whose oscillations are counted to mark the passage of time [3]." http://etc.unitbv.ro/~olteanu/Tehnici%20de%20masurare%20in%20tc/18.%20Time%20Measurement.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "For the ultimate in accuracy, scientists reach for atoms, or more precisely, an exactly known frequency of light emitted by a chosen atom. The 'ticks' are the crests of a light wave," http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_...&preview=false -------------------------------------------------------- As with all waves, the radiation has a certain frequency (i.e., it completes a certain number of full waves in a second, similar to the way a pendulum completes a certain number of swings in a minute) and this frequency can be measured The caesium atom defines the SI second. The second is 9 192 631 770 periods of the electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by the ground state hyperfine transition of the caesium atom. This means that a second is the amount of time it takes for the radiation from this transition to complete 9 192 631 770 full waves. http://www.npl.co.uk/educate-explore/what-is-time/how-do-atomic-clocks-work

What you are missing is, there is no “entity”: that is space-time, even Einstein has said that in his book, “Relativity, the Special and the General Theory”, Page 155 under Appendix 5. Year 1952; "Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field." While it is not a coordinate system it defines locations, “structural quality of the field”, with vectors and time. Motion only can exist relative to something else and space-time is not a something else, it describes the structure of something else. I’m always uncomfortable when people say this because empirically there is no way to measure or experience duration without motion. A duration reference to something in a state, like temperature, will be to something else that has experienced motion (even if only the motion of their brain activity). In other words you can't define a duration without a reference to something else in motion.

Thank you, I'll try to be more careful how I use the word in the future. You mentioned the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" and I had considered an aspect of it with the empirical time evidence I've been examining. It seemed sensible to consider that if time were the measurement of a distance / a change of position energy relative to distance, than the more accurately you determined a particles specific position there is less information available to determine its momentum, and of course the opposite, the more accurately you determined its change of position velocity the less accurately you can determine a specific position. In any event it seems very compatible with why such an uncertainty must exist and I thought it interesting you mentioned it. Maxila

Perhaps I am using the word too broadly? Since energy in one form or another makes up the observable "stuff" of space I was trying to refer to all that would encompass, a particle, a wave, matter, an electro-magnetic field, etc. Essentially what I was trying to say is a change of position of anything that can be empirically observed or measured. I am always grateful if someone is willing to show me how to express a thought correctly, or with more clarity, if you have any suggestions? Maxila

That was what I was unsure of. I thought there might be a relative receding velocity for all galaxies, proportional to distance, that was in addition to their velocity due to expansion of space; I understand that is not deemed to exist now. The relative velocity you are referring too I assume is due to the local gravitational environment, which was not what I was wondering about. Thank you, Maxila

One of the things I have been observing about empirical change is if you look carefully at the reference to what has changed it always seems to be coincident with some form of energy changing position in space. Let’s take a look at the reference to the apples in #2 and the temporal coordinates # 3. The change for the apple in #2 is an axiom so we can move on to the temporal change in #3. There are many things one can choose to point to the reference for this change, a clock, stellar bodies, an experience of a passing duration for ourselves, etc. Look carefully at any of these and at some level the temporal change must be referenced to some form of energy/particles (at the fundemental level that scales up to a macro level) changing position. If we kept those apples in # 3 and every particle in the Universe also did not change position, there would be no temporal change to reference. The only reference that could be made for any kind of temporal change in that case might be to a body outside the Universe that did experience some form of a change of position, because if every particle of energy in the Universe did not change position there would be no way to reference any change in time. Maxila If I recall correctly the electrons position in QM is considered to be something like a probability cloud around the nucleus until it’s measured? I was talking about observed empirical change. I've been looking at time for a while in many aspects, I have no agenda on what I think it should be, and I’m trying to see its empirical characteristics objectively. So far, that any empirical change in time is coincident with a change of position (or a change in position is coincident with a change in time), has held up to the evidence I have looked at; also that any empirical change is fundamentally the result of some form of a change of position of energy (energy of any form). While it has held up to relativistic empirical evidence, it does not hold up to some relativistic mathematical constructs that unfortunately will never be observable even if they exist (things like the infinite time of a singularity, and zero time of a photon frame). In any event it is remarkable how much evidence there is for a very precise empirical definition of time, that even if not completely compatible with all theoretical models, seems to be compatible with the observable evidence those models predict? So far I have only found unobservable mathematical time constructs where inconsistencies exist; however I make no claims other than merely pointing out some of the observational evidence I have come across to date. In fact I am continually looking for inconsistencies and I would appreciate being directed towards such evidence. The one problem I've had in discussing the empirical evidence of time characteristics is some peoples idea of time is so ingrained they can't overcome subject reasoning and discuss the evidence factually or deductively. I can understand it because my own ingrained thoughts of time caused me trouble seeing facts clearly when I first started examining it. Maxila

That's is excatly what I wondered about, after comsic inflation, I thought there was also a velocity (kinetic energy) imparted to the energy (the physical stuff) of space. I guess that answeres my question, no kinetic energy was deemed to be transfered to the physical stuff of space, right? Maxila

I only know the basics of quantum mechanics, I had to check and that I was stating this correctly; electron spin represents angular momentum, which has both magnitude and direction. That by itself seems implicit with a change in position? Since I am not that versed in quantum mechanics, I would appreciate if you explained to me how a change in spin may not be interpreted as any kind of change in position (if that's what you were saying)? I was careful to say I was only talking about what is observed empirically, I don’t know if it is true of spin; however I do know many quantum states are probabilities of outcomes and not directly observable? Maxila

You appear to be more knowledgeable than most; I’ve tried to find those relationships several times before unsuccessfully. I have an unanswered question regarding the dynamics used to determine the accelerating expansion that I have been unable to find an answer too. Perhaps you can help? In what I've read, they determine red shift due to the expected expansion of space relative to the luminosity of various distant supernovas. In a nutshell more distant supernova of a given redshift are dimmer than expected. I could not find if, when determining red shift for the expected expansion of space, they gave consideration to red shift for any receding physical relative velocity a more distant supernova might also have? In other words wouldn't the supernova have a physical receding relative velocity that caused red shift, in addition to red shift for its distance and the expansion of space? I couldn't find any references to that dynamic in my queries, and it seemed to me that more distant supernova in a younger Universe should have a greater receding relative velocity red shift, in addition to a greater red shift for the expansion of space? Maxila

The cause of any change has a strong empirical basis; at the most fundamental level it is the change of position of particles in space. Empirically speaking this scales up to how time works on a macro level; any change you can think of, at its root, is caused by a change of position of energy in a space (energy in some form, i.e. matter, etc.). Remember a change of position does not have to be linear. The two measurable physical quantities that are used to derive a time are, distance, and a change of position energy that relates to a distance, the latter is more commonly thought of as speed. The reason I didn't use the word speed is because scientifically speed is defined as a change of position in distance as it relates to time. That can create a circular argument of what time is, and the illusion that empirically time is some sort of entity or dynamic. I am only talking about empirical observations of time and change, not the aspects of time that can appear in mathematical constructs but have had no empirical basis. All clocks whose functions I have studied (including atomic clocks), measure a change of position energy as it relates to a specific distance in order to derive its units of time. Those time units than represent any equivalent ratio of that distance over that change of position energy. An easy visual example one can imagine to consider these dynamics is, one Earth rotation representing one day of time. The distance, change of position energy relative to a distance, time, and the ratio relationship of time = distance / change of position energy, are all easily apparent. On careful examination it is also apparent in the function of clocks, including official time standard atomic clocks. Empirically time is the measurement of a physical quantity in a similar way mass is. Whereas mass measures a quantity of energy, time measures a change of position energy as it relates to a change in distance, and the cause of change itself is simply a change of position of energy in any form. I hope that was a bit helpful? Maxila