Jump to content

Does time have a speed?

qwe)k

By qwe)k
in Relativity

 Share

Recommended Posts

magpies

magpies

Posted
Posted

I think the point where time gets speed is when a being with an ability to notice it does so. If you can see/hear/feel 1,000,000 different things in one rotation of a clock arm you will have a different sense for time as someone who can see only... 10 different things in the same amount of time. The human brain works at a certain speed I forget what it is but experiments have been done to try and "over clock" a human brain and I just wonder what it would be like? Iv had times in my life where I could count 200 seconds or so I thought in under 60 seconds so mby I do know what its like :)

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Phi for All
Phi for All

And you didn't have to learn anything.

elfmotat
elfmotat

When you ask "what causes X" in everyday circumstances, you're working under some framework in which you allow something to be true. Otherwise, you're perpetually asking "what causes the thing that ca

MigL
MigL

Please don't make elfmotat yell again . Nobody likes it when he's angry !   Are you moving as you read this question, Thorham ? If you can ( intelligently ) answer that question without reference

gokul.er137

gokul.er137

Posted
Posted

Well, I am new to the form. I joined because I want to learn new things. Hope you people help me with my endeavour.

 

From ajb's post I have an idea of where this post is going. The 0/infinity came about probably after using the equations of mass increase, time dilation and length contraction for photons. Since their rest mass is zero, things become 0/infinity.

 

But again that is exactly why the equations are not applicable to photons. Or any other boson for that matter. Because all of them travel at the speed of light. Einstein's special relativity only defined the change in space-time on a relative basis as a "mass" tends to the speed of light. Not for massless particles at the speed of light. That is for quantum mechanics to deal with :).

ajb

ajb

Posted
Posted

Or any other boson for that matter. Because all of them travel at the speed of light.

 

Massless bosons (and fermions) you mean.

  • 2 weeks later...
Physman

Physman

Posted
Posted

time does not have a speed although if it were to 'move' it would have to do so faster than light for obvious reasons.

  • 5 years later...
Matronics

Matronics

Posted
Posted

I've heard that time has a speed. Some think that time speeds up, rather than slowing down, when you travel at the speed of light. It's just that traveling creates the illusion that time slows down.

I also think that Einstein is wrong when he said, "When an object moves, it mass gains". I've ran and not gained weight. A bowling ball would not travel down the alley and gain mass.

Endy0816

Endy0816

Posted
Posted

If you could measure mass to a high enough degree you would find that it does increase. For realistic measurements you need to be going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light and unless you're The Flash this is probably not the case.

 

Time dilation isn't any kind of illusion. Two measurements of the same thing can differ and both measurements can be accurate for their respective frames of reference.

 

Probably the best way to experiment with this concept:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

swansont

swansont

Posted
Posted

I've heard that time has a speed. Some think that time speeds up, rather than slowing down, when you travel at the speed of light. It's just that traveling creates the illusion that time slows down.

Who are these "some"?

 

Objects with mass can't travel at c, so this conjecture is moot.

 

I also think that Einstein is wrong when he said, "When an object moves, it mass gains". I've ran and not gained weight. A bowling ball would not travel down the alley and gain mass.

 

Einstein never claimed it, and those that do are introducing a new definition of mass known as relativistic mass. The equations normally used in physics use rest mass (or invariant mass), and kinetic energy is a separate energy term in the equations.

If you could measure mass to a high enough degree you would find that it does increase. For realistic measurements you need to be going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light and unless you're The Flash this is probably not the case.

 

 

But (practically) nobody doing such experiments uses that definition. They measure the kinetic energy and use rest mass.

michel123456

michel123456

Posted
Posted (edited)

Speed is defined by units of distance divided by units of time. It is the number of meters you travel in one second. m/s

 

The "speed" of time (wrong word as mentioned above) would be the reverse of speed.

It would be defined as units of time divided by units of distance.

It would be the number of seconds you "travel" (you spend) in one meter. s/m

But I am not really sure if that means something physically.

 

----------------------------

A quick google search (seconds divided by meter) does not return anything corresponding.

Edited by michel123456
Thorham

Thorham

Posted
Posted

Couldn't you say that the speed of time is number of seconds per 'base second', where a 'base second' is a second on a clock that has no velocity and is not near a large mass?

 

elfmotat

elfmotat

Posted
Posted

Couldn't you say that the speed of time is number of seconds per 'base second', where a 'base second' is a second on a clock that has no velocity and is not near a large mass?

 

 

No velocity according to who?

elfmotat

elfmotat

Posted
Posted

 

Not relative velocity, but absolute velocity, that is, the clock isn't moving at all.

 

There's no such thing as absolute velocity. That's the whole point of relativity.

Thorham

Thorham

Posted
Posted

There's no such thing as absolute velocity. That's the whole point of relativity.

I'm using the wrong word. What I mean is that the clock has no kinetic energy.

 

Basically the idea is that time speed is the duration of a second second relative to a the second of a clock that experiences no time dilation. The clock must therefore have no kinetic energy and must not be close to a large mass.

elfmotat

elfmotat

Posted
Posted

I'm using the wrong word. What I mean is that the clock has no kinetic energy.

 

Basically the idea is that time speed is the duration of a second second relative to a the second of a clock that experiences no time dilation. The clock must therefore have no kinetic energy and must not be close to a large mass.

 

  • No kinetic energy according to who?
  • No time dilation according to who?
Thorham

Thorham

Posted
Posted (edited)
  • No kinetic energy according to who?
  • No time dilation according to who?

According to the mechanisms that make movement and time dilation possible.

Edited by Thorham
elfmotat

elfmotat

Posted
Posted

According to the mechanisms that make movement and time dilation possible.

 

I don't know what "mechanisms" you're referring to, or how that answers either of my questions.

Thorham

Thorham

Posted
Posted

I don't know what "mechanisms" you're referring to, or how that answers either of my questions.

If what I mean by 'has no velocity' or 'has no kinetic energy' still isn't clear, then sorry, but I can't explain it any more clearly.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.