Ok ive seen alot of Speed of Light threads But What if u think of it a different way!

[Sostyles]

We are all stuck on light why light it has been completely studied and experimented with. Instead of knowing the speed of Light we should try to discover the speed of Time....

 

How would you calculate the speed of time? Normally to calculate the speed of something you must calculate the time and distance it travelled but how can you calculate a distance that time travels?

 

The only reason nobody has created a time machine yet is because we have no idea of the components or parts required to build one. If you could travel faster than the speed time, i believe the person inside the travelling vessel would either break out of our timeline only to land in another, or would exist outside the timeline thus experiencing no effects of time i.e: Ageing.

 

I do not believe it would be possible to go back in time only forward this could be acheived by really exceeding the speed of time to slingshot yourself forward, but it would be hard to judge time gaps!

 

Time is constant in one place but has variations over a large planet surface which means it has a speed which can be beaten, but its probably Very Fast!

 

I have a few more theories which i will be posting very soon so if you like my work please keep reading. If you agree with my theory i would love to hear your thoughts and findings plz email me on.

 

Strangey_boy@o2.co.uk

 

Thank you

[aguy2]

How would you calculate the speed of time? Normally to calculate the speed of something you must calculate the time and distance it travelled but how can you calculate a distance that time travels?

 

Are you concidering the 'speed of time' to be something akin to a 'flow' of time?

 

aguy2

[Saryctos]

I have been silently reading these forums for a little while now, and although I don't say much, i will say this. The speed of "time" doesn't exist. not that it can't be proven, but it doesn't exist to the point that there is not even a reason for disproving it other than to feed the curiosity of the human mind.

 

Aslo, the real reason noone has created a time machine is that travelling through a medium that does not exist is quite hard to do. I suppose if you were to restore all the relative matter and velocities to a more than picture perfect "moment in time" in the past you are going to be as close to time travel as there will ever be.

 

 

Also, going "forward in time" is a relatively human term. as for the going faster than light idea, I cannot argue against your case with facts, since there are none to speak of, but I doubt getting somewhere in a hurry really constitutes traveling forward in time. If anything you may perceive it as going back in time as the light waves which you passed begin to catch up to you all over again. When talking in that sense it is hard to forget that it is mearly light waves, and not the events catching up to you.

 

I'm usually open to new ideas, but when it comes to theories about time I am staunchly opposed to the standardized views. Mainly to the point that it creates a view of mysticism in the field of science that should not be.

[gcol]

Whether time as a separate entity does or does not exist, we appear to need it as a concept to quantify the passage of events. For as long as we accept the speed of light as fixed and absolute, it makes a convenient yardstick by which to measure time.

 

As to what may be required to move to and fro in time, I like to imagine a line A to B, representing the future and past respectively ( or "the line of time"). Somewhere in between lies point C, representing our present moment. Thus to move forwrd intime, point C must remain relatively motionless so that A moves towards it. Travel towards the past, point B, would require C to exceed the general "flow".

 

I mention this because I am always in some doubt as to why the general opinion is that excessive speed produces forward travel. To me it seems the reverse is more likely.

[Molotov]

This is akin to asking what is the "frame rate" of the universe. If time moves along as frames in the linear 4th dimension we could possibly determine its speed.

 

Lets do a thought experiment. Imagine a single hydrogen atom floating in space. Now look at its electron zooming around the nucleus at the speed of light. This electron is moving incredibly fast but is limited in speed by c.

 

Now lets view this from a different perspective. Imagine viewing this atom with its electron spinning at the speed of light from the perspective of time. That is, break the event up into frames and spread it along a time line. If we can figure out how many frames are in one second we would know the speed of time.

 

Again lets take a look at this electron. In one second it will have traveled an incredible distance of 299,792,458 meters around its nucleus. And in 1 meter of travel .00000000333 seconds will have elapsed. Now lets look at plank's length. Supposedly this represents the smallest distance something can move from one position to another. If our electron moves one plank would this not represent one "frame"?

 

So all we need to do now is figure how many plank lengths an object moving at the speed of light will traverse in one second.

 

Plank length is about 1 x 10^(-34) meters

Speed of light is about 3 x 10^8 m/sec

 

(10^34 plank lengths in a meter) x (3 x 10^8)

 

~ 3.0 × 10^42

 

In one second an object at the speed of light will move 3.0 x 10^42 plank lengths. So we can say the universal frame rate(or speed of time) is 3.0 x 10^42 frames per second.

 

Someone correct me if im way off.

[[Tycho?]]

This is akin to asking what is the "frame rate" of the universe. If time moves along as frames in the linear 4th dimension we could possibly determine its speed.

 

Lets do a thought experiment. Imagine a single hydrogen atom floating in space. Now look at its electron zooming around the nucleus at the speed of light. This electron is moving incredibly fast but is limited in speed by c.

 

Now lets view this from a different perspective. Imagine viewing this atom with its electron spinning at the speed of light from the perspective of time. That is' date=' break the event up into frames and spread it along a time line. If we can figure out how many frames are in one second we would know the speed of time.

 

Again lets take a look at this electron. In one second it will have traveled an incredible distance of 299,792,458 meters around its nucleus. And in 1 meter of travel .00000000333 seconds will have elapsed. Now lets look at plank's length. Supposedly this represents the smallest distance something can move from one position to another. If our electron moves one plank would this not represent one "frame"?

 

So all we need to do now is figure how many plank lengths an object moving at the speed of light will traverse in one second.

 

Plank length is about 1 x 10^(-34) meters

Speed of light is about 3 x 10^8 m/sec

 

(10^34 plank lengths in a meter) x (3 x 10^8)

 

~ 3.0 × 10^42

 

In one second an object at the speed of light will move 3.0 x 10^42 plank lengths. So we can say the universal frame rate(or speed of time) is 3.0 x 10^42 frames per second.

 

Someone correct me if im way off.[/quote']

 

Well for one thing the electron can't me moving at c.

 

The problem with considering this in terms of distance travelled and time taken is that not all observers agree on the time it takes for these things to happen. If I left earth in a very fast spaceship, I could return having aged one week. While perhaps 2 weeks passed on earth. There is no fundamental refference frame from which to measure velocities and time taken.