Time is a constant

[Sjm_dynamo]

The rate at which any process can unfold is limited by the rate at which time passes. This is why the speed of light has a maximum value.

[Silvestru]

18 minutes ago, Sjm_dynamo said:

The rate at which any process can unfold

is relative. c is not. The frame of reference is relative and the speed of light is constant.

19 minutes ago, Sjm_dynamo said:

This is why the speed of light has a maximum value.

Speed of light does not have a maximum value. It has an exact constant value. That is c.

"Speed of time" depends on the reference of frame.

Edited July 18, 2018 by Silvestru

[Sjm_dynamo]

Ok just a thought thanks for taking the time to answer it

[Silvestru]

14 minutes ago, Sjm_dynamo said:

Ok just a thought thanks for taking the time to answer it

Don't worry, also you (correctly) posted in speculation so there is much room for discussion. Don't hesitate to raise questions like the above. There are members who are much better qualified to answer.

Welcome to the forum BTW.  

 

[Sjm_dynamo]

I was just thinking I have heard they have created a clock that loses only a second over the lifetime of the universe but I have never heard of a clock that gains time. This lends credence to the speculation that there is a maximal speed at which processes can unfold.

I have recently read NKS by wolfram and so fascinated by this stuff now.

 

When two objects travel at the same speed to each other they appear to be still. Thus when you travel at the speed of the universe time appears to stop. However this is just in your reference place.

[Silvestru]

1 hour ago, Sjm_dynamo said:

I was just thinking I have heard they have created a clock that loses only a second over the lifetime of the universe but I have never heard of a clock that gains time.

Hmmm, I can't say anything about this but swansont does this for a living so he might give you more info about this. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sjm_dynamo said:

I was just thinking I have heard they have created a clock that loses only a second over the lifetime of the universe but I have never heard of a clock that gains time. This lends credence to the speculation that there is a maximal speed at which processes can unfold.

If the reporting was proper, they would say gain or lose, since there would be no way of knowing. It could run fast, or slow. Such is the nature of having noise in your measurement. It's a little lazy to say it would lose a second — that just means that the noise is such that you would expect a difference of no more than one second against the "true" time.

It's also a bit of showmanship, because the device (optical lattice "clock") only runs for a few days at best (maybe they've gotten it up to a week or two by now). Which raises the question of how many seconds you gain or lose when your device is turned off.

They are awesome when they are running, but a better analogy is that they are a really, really, good stopwatch.

 

[Coherentbliss]

the speed of light changes as it passes through different parts of space and we cannot calculate the speed as we once thought....correct? If we send a beam of light from earth and between earth and the target there is a  collapsed star or a worm hole then that beam of light could slow way down....????  so...like everything else there must be a plan, a rule, a map etc...to engage a test. But even after the latter we can't be at the point of light to measure it...thus proving math is just a concept WE have made to try to place order in our minds...."if we don't cast out a fishing line nothing will get caught...." becomes an oxymoron because EVERYTHING "we" do is explicit to our reality of which we create FOR us. We can only see our reality because we are blinded by the shades we place over our own eyes BECAUSE of our "reality".

Edited July 18, 2018 by Coherentbliss

[Silvestru]

30 minutes ago, Coherentbliss said:

the speed of light changes as it passes through different parts of space and we cannot calculate the speed as we once thought....correct? If we send a beam of light from earth and between earth and the target there is a  collapsed star or a worm hole then that beam of light could slow way down....???? 

No, light would just travel a longer distance.

This is gravitational lensing but the concept applies to your question.  Light would not take the straight path and would therefore take a longer time to get there but it would still travel at c.

Photons of light are not technically affected by large gravitational fields,* instead space and time itself become distorted around incredibly massive objects and the light simply follows this distorted curvature of space.

*This might be controversial. Other members can weigh in on this.

37 minutes ago, Coherentbliss said:

so...like everything else there must be a plan, a rule, a map etc...to engage a test. But even after the latter we can't be at the point of light to measure it...thus proving math is just a concept WE have made to try to place order in our minds...."if we don't cast out a fishing line nothing will get caught...." becomes an oxymoron because EVERYTHING "we" do is explicit to our reality of which we create FOR us. We can only see our reality because we are blinded by the shades we place over our own eyes BECAUSE of our "reality".

The rest of your comment is less grounded in the world of science and more in the reality that Alex Jones lives in so I won't address it. (but that's ok! It's speculation section, but you are high-jacking)

Edited July 18, 2018 by Silvestru

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Coherentbliss said:

 like everything else there must be a plan, a rule, a map etc...to engage a test. But even after the latter we can't be at the point of light to measure it...thus proving math is just a concept WE have made to try to place order in our minds 

In a rough sense, this is what science is trying to do. Come up with a set of consistent rules that nature follows. And if it works (which you establish by testing, i.e. experiment), well, that's what we're trying to achieve. We can explain and predict how nature behaves. 

 

 

[Coherentbliss]

Predictably, schools and life teach us what we want and need to learn. I want to also learn the unpredictable.  Science without imagination is like toast without butter. I prefer homemade apple butter on mine. There are many great minds here but some of them remind me of the first video games that came out...stuck with what they were "programmed" with. 

[YaDinghus]

4 hours ago, Coherentbliss said:

Predictably, schools and life teach us what we want and need to learn. I want to also learn the unpredictable.  Science without imagination is like toast without butter. I prefer homemade apple butter on mine. There are many great minds here but some of them remind me of the first video games that came out...stuck with what they were "programmed" with. 

Maybe you're stuck in 19th century physics, when everything was believed to be known. But hey, people like Heisenberg, Pauli and Einstein debugged it and now science continues to grow

[Silvestru]

6 hours ago, Coherentbliss said:

Predictably, schools and life teach us what we want and need to learn. I want to also learn the unpredictable.

How can you learn the unpredictable? Makes no sense....  I want to befriend the unclimbable.

[Eise]

6 hours ago, Coherentbliss said:

I want to also learn the unpredictable.

Silvestru already commented on this. You cannot learn the unpredictable, otherwise it would be predictable. However, what one can (try to) learn, is to live with the unpredictable. 

6 hours ago, Coherentbliss said:

Science without imagination is like toast without butter.

Yes, you are completely right. Where do you think new theories come from? Nature does not impress them upon us. They come from scientists' imagination. But after the imagination, the new theories must be tested: on internal consistency, on consistency with established facts, and against observations and experiments. But I am afraid that what you mean with 'imagination' is in fact ideas contradicting established science. I think your position is due to the fact that you have no idea about how science is progressing, and what the status of its results are. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by Eise

[ag400002]

Why is the speed of light constant ?

Perhaps our universal light speed is constant because our universe constantly splits at that specific universal light speed

[beecee]

3 hours ago, ag400002 said:

Why is the speed of light constant ?

Perhaps our universal light speed is constant because our universe constantly splits at that specific universal light speed

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant probably as a result of the nature and properties of our spacetime that emerged at the BB as are the other constants, such as the fine structure constant, the gravitational constant, Plancks constant etc. It's just the way it is and probably if it wasn't, then we wouldn't be here to ponder that question.

Speculation has it that our BB was a fluctuation in a pre-existing quantum foam, and that many other fluctuations have and will occur....some with properties that have seen them already collapse, others with an expansion rate so fast that any matter that evolved, has already been ripped asunder due to the decaying process that we know will also happen to our own universe/spacetime. Perhaps this quantum foam, may best be described as the closest thing to the "nothing" from which our universe evolved.

Our universe, our spacetime, is simply luckily fortunate enough to have things as they are, that incidentally support abiogeneis and the evolution of life as we know it.

All speculative of course and imaginative also. Perhaps one day evidence maybe discovered that supports such speculative processes. Nothing wrong with imagination and I agree probably many theories have sprung from such imagination. But one must also understand that imagination while important, goes hand in hand with knowledge.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." Albert Einstein:

I believe that is what Einstein was trying to show with the above quote.

Edited July 19, 2018 by beecee

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant probably as a result of the nature and properties of our spacetime that emerged at the BB as are the other constants, such as the fine structure constant, the gravitational constant, Plancks constant etc. It's just the way it is and probably if it wasn't, then we wouldn't be here to ponder that question.

Speculation has it that our BB was a fluctuation in a pre-existing quantum foam, and that many other fluctuations have and will occur....some with properties that have seen them already collapse, others with an expansion rate so fast that any matter that evolved, has already been ripped asunder due to the decaying process that we know will also happen to our own universe/spacetime. Perhaps this quantum foam, may best be described as the closest thing to the "nothing" from which our universe evolved.

Our universe, our spacetime, is simply luckily fortunate enough to have things as they are, that incidentally support abiogeneis and the evolution of life as we know it.

All speculative of course and imaginative also. Perhaps one day evidence maybe discovered that supports such speculative processes. Nothing wrong with imagination and I agree probably many theories have sprung from such imagination. But one must also understand that imagination while important, goes hand in hand with knowledge.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution." Albert Einstein:

I believe that is what Einstein was trying to show with the above quote.

 Imagination is what puts you on the shoulders of giants to see further but first you have to know what they knew.

Edited July 19, 2018 by StringJunky

[beecee]

43 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 Imagination is what puts you on the shoulders of giants to see further but first you have to know what they knew.

Bingo!

 

 

Edited July 19, 2018 by beecee

[Strange]

On 18/07/2018 at 4:30 PM, Coherentbliss said:

 

the speed of light changes as it passes through different parts of space and we cannot calculate the speed as we once thought....correct?

 

There is a variable delay, rather than a change is speed. And we can calculate it. 

So not correct on both points.