time

[natedawgwoodbury]

do anyone think that time has a speed and if its broken than things will go faster and why.

 

 

[zapatos]

do anyone think that time has a speed and if its broken than things will go faster and why.

I think time moves along at one second per second. I don't know what it means to 'break' speed so I don't know how to answer the question of whether or not things will go faster if speed is broken.

[elfmotat]

Please explain what you mean by "speed of time."

[natedawgwoodbury]

okay. i think that time has a speed and it can go at a pace.

[khaled]

Time is an abstract entity, to study progress & relative progress between physics elements

 

We fix our clocks from time to time to be sync with an international global clock, but there is no universal clock

 

Speaking of which, can't constant invariants (over time) be used to create a perfect clock ?

 

This website is nice, it has animations that illustrate different theories in Relativity: http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/SpecialRelativity.html

Edited March 27, 2012 by khaled

[owl]

Time is an abstract entity, to study progress & relative progress between physics elements

 

We fix our clocks from time to time to be sync with an international global clock, but there is no universal clock

True.

(So many "time" threads; so little "time."

Always one of my favorite subjects, the mystery of time.)

 

Physicists like to say that time is that which clocks measure. So when clocks slow down in higher gravity or at higher velocities, they say that time slows down, or "dilates."

 

If there were no clocks, what then would slow down as above? I presume that any physical process, like human aging, also slows down in one body relative to another in the different conditions above. This assumes that time, independent of "clocking it" is still the duration of physical processes as things move, the "elapsed time" for any movement.

But yet the question remains, what is the dynamic of gravity and velocity that causes the slowing of physical processes?

[michel123456]

okay. i think that time has a speed and it can go at a pace.

 

Technically you cannot use the word "speed" for time.

Speed has units meters/seconds, that is distance divided by time. So the "speed of time" would be (distance divided by time)/time. In this case you have time twice, and it is said that you can't do that because we are measuring only one time.

 

But on the other hand physicist have no problem to square a distance in situation where there is only one distance measured.

And the same physicists are also comfortable to square a speed in situations where only one speed is measured.

IOW what physicists accept to do with distance & speed they refuse to do with time.

[MigL]

I think we may be stuck in a causality ( time ) loop, We keep having the same discussion over and over with the same result.

[owl]

Seriously folks; if anyone can answer my question above, the greatest mystery of time for me, you will win my gratitude.

 

Again: "But yet the question remains, what is the dynamic of gravity and velocity that causes the slowing of physical processes?"

Anyone?

[swansont]

Seriously folks; if anyone can answer my question above, the greatest mystery of time for me, you will win my gratitude.

 

Again: "But yet the question remains, what is the dynamic of gravity and velocity that causes the slowing of physical processes?"

Anyone?

 

Again: it is the invariance of the speed of light combined with the laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames of reference. The behavior of length and time appear out of that. Really, we've been over this multiple times. It's disingenuous to word this as if no answer has been given.

 

That you reject this on philosophical grounds is another matter. Given the postulates, the derivation is quite straightforward.

[owl]

Again: it is the invariance of the speed of light combined with the laws of physics being the same in all inertial frames of reference. The behavior of length and time appear out of that. Really, we've been over this multiple times. It's disingenuous to word this as if no answer has been given.

 

That you reject this on philosophical grounds is another matter. Given the postulates, the derivation is quite straightforward.

Your "answer" doesn't even touch upon the question, what "dynamic of gravity and velocity that causes the slowing of physical processes?"

 

I have no doubt that physical process (like clock oscillations, ticking off units of *time*) slow down in higher gravity and higher velocity situations. My enduring question is, "what makes that happen?"

Your history of hostility toward me makes it so you can not even comprehend what I am asking.

[swansont]

Your "answer" doesn't even touch upon the question, what "dynamic of gravity and velocity that causes the slowing of physical processes?"

 

I have no doubt that physical process (like clock oscillations, ticking off units of *time*) slow down in higher gravity and higher velocity situations. My enduring question is, "what makes that happen?"

Your history of hostility toward me makes it so you can not even comprehend what I am asking.

 

I do understand what you are really asking: it is both poorly worded (it begs the question) and not within the realm of science. So why continue to ask it in a science forum, where you are only going to get a science answer – which you then reject?*

 

P.S. I believe the word you want here is "contempt"

 

P.P.S. Thank you once again for simultaneously pretending you are being treated in an uncivil fashion while implying that I am stupid. The irony always gives me a chuckle.

 

*rhetorical question. No need to answer. I'm not getting dragged into a non-science discussion about this again.

[khaled]

I'd think about time, as a question "how fast things progress in a given frame"

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Owl - we are not going to go through another recitation of your personal incredulity and lack of understanding of the theories of relativity; please do not attempt to take this thread down that route.

Thanks - and please do not continue the off-thread discussion by answering this modnote.