What do our clocks read?

[Conjurer]

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

The stance here is that the biological entity do age.

Note: I disagree, but who cares?

The reason why I believe it actually does age is because I was able to solve the Light Clock problem in Minkowski spacetime to get the proper time equation.  

In the proof, time dilates, because the speed of light is constant.  Under the constraint of having to form a right triangle, the values of the other variables have to be altered, when considering distance as ct.

Then there is a sort of mechanical connection between the sides of the triangle that force the time variables to change based on what the time variables are on the other side of the right triangle, in order for it to remain a right triangle.  It comes from it being treated as a sort of rigid body that has to make connections to form an object or right triangle.

An observer on a space ship traveling close to the speed of light would observe light to travel straight up and down a distance ct'.  They are in a different frame of reference, so their time is t'.  An observer at rest would measure the light clock to send a beam at an angle a distance of ct.  The ship would travel a distance of vt.

(ct')^2 + (vt)^2 = (ct)^2

c^2t'^2 = c^2t^2 - v^2t^2

c^2t'^2 = c^2t^2 (1 - v^2/c^2)

ct' = ct sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

t' = t sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

Then you have t' = tau, and the light clock problem has been solved in Minkowski Spacetime.  Previously, that was the only reason why relativity wasn't seen to be real or a possibility that a biological entity would not age, because no one was able to solve this problem.  Then I solved it, so there should be no other reason why it shouldn't, that I know of.  It makes it clear that it is actually a property of spacetime itself.  

Edited January 19, 2020 by Conjurer

[DNR]

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Probably, The Tell-Tale Heart... or, Hickory Dickery Dock when they’re tired. 

Thanks.

17 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The reason why I believe it actually does age is because I was able to solve the Light Clock problem in Minkowski spacetime to get the proper time equation.  

In the proof, time dilates, because the speed of light is constant.  Under the constraint of having to form a right triangle, the values of the other variables have to be altered, when considering distance as ct.

Then there is a sort of mechanical connection between the sides of the triangle that force the time variables to change based on what the time variables are on the other side of the right triangle, in order for it to remain a right triangle.  It comes from it being treated as a sort of rigid body that has to make connections to form an object or right triangle.

An observer on a space ship traveling close to the speed of light would observe light to travel straight up and down a distance ct'.  They are in a different frame of reference, so their time is t'.  An observer at rest would measure the light clock to send a beam at an angle a distance of ct.  The ship would travel a distance of vt.

(ct')^2 + (vt)^2 = (ct)^2

c^2t'^2 = c^2t^2 - v^2t^2

c^2t'^2 = c^2t^2 (1 - v^2/c^2)

ct' = ct sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

t' = t sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

Then you have t' = tau, and the light clock problem has been solved in Minkowski Spacetime.  Previously, that was the only reason why relativity wasn't seen to be real or a possibility that a biological entity would not age, because no one was able to solve this problem.  Then I solved it, so there should be no other reason why it shouldn't, that I know of.  It makes it clear that it is actually a property of spacetime itself.  

Thanks for your educating reply.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, DNR said:

Thanks for your educating reply.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Edited January 20, 2020 by dimreepr

[DNR]

On 1/20/2020 at 2:52 PM, dimreepr said:

I hope you're being sarcastic.

No, never. If you so feel; I apologise. It is nowhere in my nature to be sarcastic. More so, I am not a physicist and just trying to learn some physics. So how could I be sarcastic towards a professional physicist.

Sorry again.

Thanks

[Bufofrog]

4 minutes ago, DNR said:

I am not a physicist and just trying to learn some physics. So how could I be sarcastic towards a professional physicist.

It was hoped you were being sarcastic.  The person you thanked for the "educating reply" has shown over and over that he is completely ignorant of physics.  His reply was gibberish.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, DNR said:

No, never. If you so feel; I apologise. It is nowhere in my nature to be sarcastic. More so, I am not a physicist and just trying to learn some physics. So how could I be sarcastic towards a professional physicist.

Sorry again.

Thanks

If you want to learn some physics, look to the mods and resident experts, not the likes of me or him.

Edited January 23, 2020 by dimreepr

[dad]

On 12/22/2019 at 8:22 AM, swansont said:

In physics, time is not a force that causes things to happen.

What would you say that time is in the realm of physics?

[beecee]

On 11/1/2019 at 1:16 PM, DNR said:

Hello everybody.

I am a student of biology. But for the last few years, I have been studying Time. I have started a blog page to share my personal views about Time. Here is the link to my blog. I humbly request you all to see it and post your critical comments.

LINK REMOVED

Thanks.

Time and space [as we know them] evolved at t+10-43 seconds. 

Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers, and can be in effect interchangeable. Without  space, there is no time, without time their is no space. A union of the two [spacetime] follows from the fact that "ç" is invariant and of course gravity is described by the warping/curving/twisting of this spacetime. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by beecee

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dad said:

What would you say that time is in the realm of physics?

A dimension.

[dad]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

A dimension.

 

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

A dimension.

OK, but that is something arbitrarily set. Time is not like length. Science does not know what time itself is.

Edited February 18, 2020 by dad

[swansont]

Just now, dad said:

OK, but that is something arbitrarily set.

How is it arbitrary?

 

Just now, dad said:

Time is not like length.

No? Not like it at all?

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, dad said:

OK, but that is something arbitrarily set. Time is not like length. Science does not know what time itself is.

Time is a temporal dimension, length is a spatial one. Both add degrees of freedom to the way things move in the universe.