The Speed of Time.

Time: It's all relative my friend.

Man, you are all over the place, I don't even know where to begin. I start typing then think 'Nope, that won't do'. You have provoked many thoughts on time, specifically it's tangibility.

I enjoy thoughts and discussion on time, although it has been a while. I think there is two ways we have to look at Time, our perception of it and it's existence apart from us. Then again, we also have to look at it either scientifically or philosophically. One of the biggest problems I have with Kant, is his Transcendental Aesthetic. However, I do not have a problem with Eisteins conception of time. The former is philosophical (and insane) the latter is mathematical (and also insane).

If you are interested in reading about time, I suggest the book "About Time" by Paul Davies.



Light is also a wave, sometimes, and it is also particles... or, a particle-wave. Sound is collections of particles that move through a medium at different compression rates, we translate it as a wave.

Yeah I was kinda everywhere at once with that thought.
I went a few days without much sleep and tried to think clearly...it didn't work out so well.
I was always under the understanding that light was a beam, however. If it was a wave, then it could theoretically "miss" hitting things that are small enough to pass mention.

What do you mean by beam?

From what I understand, light demonstrates properties of both waves and particles. I don't think we really understand all that light is. There is a lot of websites out there about light.

What interests me most is the relation between time, light, and space, as exemplified by Einsteins theories of relativity. Why is it that mass and speed determine the flow of time? Then, why is it that we always experience time flowing the same, even though it is flowing different for me than it is for you?

If my last sentence didn't make sense, try this on for size. If I travel 80% the speed of light away from Earth for 6 months (my time inside the space ship), then travel back to Earth at the same speed, 1 year will have passed for me, but 10 years will pass for you on Earth. We both experience one second the same, but when we join again, we will be separated by 9 years.

Even though you probably already knew this, I just love to think about it.

Aristodler, hello and great post, I really like talking about this kind of stuff so I apologize for the length of this post.

These are topics that are aided by physicists so I hope one will pick up and guide us. I say that because I know very little about physics, but perhaps enough to be of use.

It is important to remember that the units of measures we use to understand the physical world are just measures. By that I mean it is easy to forget that time is just a manmade unit of measure that represents changes (succession) in the physical. Whatever unit we use to mark and measure this succession is irrelevant because the units are manmade tools. A second's duration is only what we agree to determine it is.

Time is perceived as linear because of the one directional progress indicated in "past, present, and future". Einstein's theory of special relativity (Lorentz transformation) indicated time is not a constant but is actually altered as one approaches the speed of light. Einstein used the same example you did of time being as a river meandering across the universe speeding up and slowing down. Time is not constant although meandering and traveling backward are still linear. In the case of meandering it is not a straight line, and in the case of backward only indicates direction of travel along the path. Jumping from past to future without going through present is the only way I see of time being nonlinear, and even a wormhole would not do this because you would start at present and travel to future or past through the linear connection of the wormhole. So I say time is linear succession without necessarily being in one direction or straight.

The wormhole, by the way, is thought to be possible and consistent with laws of physics. The problem is at the entrance of the wormhole (event horizon), would require negative matter to open, witch has not been found yet, and quantum physics and Einstein's general theory of relativity don't jive. That is why Einstein and scientists today are working to find a unified field theory, a theory that can explain every property throughout the entire universe.

Light is an electro magnetic force. It is both particle and wave depending on how you slice it. Photons are particles but they don't behave like we think particles should, I mean they travel in waves. The speed of light is what Einstein used for constant in his general theory of relativity E=MC2. The C represents the constant speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas, Latin for swiftness). This C speed is used in calculations but light passing through atmosphere or a gravitational field is slower than light traveling in a vacuum. So we should not think of light as being constant in all situations.

In quantum mechanics there are states of matter that behave in ways that seem to not make sense. At certain levels/conditions our words and concepts (and math) are not sufficient in describing the relations and phenomena that occur in quantum mechanics. This is heady stuff and I don't have enough knowledge to really discuss it so I will leave it at that.

I think Hume's discussion about identity, unity, and succession is a useful way of analyzing our perception of time. Each instance of time is separate from the next and so is a separate perception. If you look at a river today and then look again tomorrow and say that is the same river you are not correct because the water has moved on and is not the same water as yesterday. We unite separate instances of time and perception into one identity by our imagination and the objects real contiguity. If you came to the river later and it had been modified into an aqueduct with concrete sides and bottom you would not think it was the same river because of its in contiguous appearance. On the other hand, a magician may show you a handkerchief and then using slight of hand show you another one that looks like it and you would say it was the same.

Anyway, I will stop rambling now and give someone else a chance

Dear Ari,

How fast does a "second" move? One second per second?

This is the problem, which is why I believe that Parmenides and Zeno were exactly right, as implied by Einstein's STR. I made this point on my own note.

All measures of time we can conceive of need be based on the movement of matter, such as the Earth's rotation and its revolution around its sun. Thus, we can just as correctly state that one second is 1/86400 the time it takes for the Earth to make a complete rotation as we can maintain that it takes the Earth 86400 seconds to accomplish the same. Either way of putting it, we label this occurrence a "day."

But if you would analyze this, it doesn't answer your question about the "speed of time." It just provides a circular reference that begs the question.

Inherent within the question is a degree of subjectivity. A week to Christmas for a child seems an eternity; to his or her parents trying to get everything done in preparation, it seems a fleeting moment. An adult Mayfly might live a single one of our days; yet perhaps it seems a reasonable life expectancy to them.

I believe there can be no answer to what is the speed of time other than "zero," as I believe the matter we base all measurements upon is in fact static. The illusion of movement, and thus time and its speed, comes from the universal consciousness which is the underlying (and only) reality.

Have you ever run in a dream? If so, who or what decides how fast and far you run and how fast and far that seems? In reality, how fast and how far have you run?

What is the arena where everything takes place? What has always been present whenever you have observed, felt, thought or experienced anything and in its absence you could never truly attest anything has happened except by inference after it reemerges?

The speed of light is a constant because no matter how fast a person is travelling toward a beam of light that is moving away from them, that beam of light always travels at a constant speed away from the person.

For example, if I were to throw a baseball 50 mph, then ran after it at 25 mph, the ball is in effect moving away from me at 25 mph and I would eventually catch up with the ball.

If I shine light away from me at 300,000 kps, then run after it at 150,000 kps, it is still moving aways from me at 300,000 kps.

I only have a minute, so I'm only going to address one thought tonight, and the other two tomorrow.



That is what I was speaking of.
One second is one second...kinda.


Take a tape recorder that has high speed dubbing capability.
Turn on the radio and press record.
Now change the speed to hi speed.
Now change it to higher speed.
Change it to normal.
Repeat the process for five minutes.

Now play it back, and see what it sounds like.
You recorded it in three increments, but the broadcaster only spoke one speed.
This experiment will show you what I mean. By the speeds changing repeatedly, but the tape playing in one speed, you can see that the broadcaster will sound slow, slower, and normal.
Picture this as time going by in variant speeds, and us being the tape recorder.
We perceive time as constant because we exist within it, and no other reason.

Gotta go for now, but there's more that makes sense...promise.

"If science knew what LIGHT actually IS, instead of the waves and corpuscles of incandescent suns which science now think it is, a new civilisation would arise from that fact alone.

Light is not waves which travel at 186.000 miles per second, which science says it is, -- nor does light travel at all."

Walter Russell, in "A New Concept of the Universe"

rado,

What other than free speculation is this statement, has Russell done experimentation which indicates this is so, and if so, what is it. How would Russell explain to me the presence of a three O'clock shadow, how could there be a shadow if the light was not blocked by an object?

It's not "does light exist or not" light has very little to do with the equation.

A second is measured by the movement of matter.
A second hand takes equal amounts of space to move between the second markers on a clock.
The time that elapses between those two points is what may be inconsistent.
It takes me 40 minutes to drive to Ottawa from my house if I do speed limit.
It takes my wife 30 minutes when she says she's driving speed limit.
Same space, different speeds, hence different times.
If by speed limit, we compare my house and Ottawa to the 12:00 and 8:00 markers on a clock and the time between is 40 minutes, then I move between the two spaces in an increment of 40 minutes.
My wife moves between those two increments in 40 minutes as well, but her 40 minutes only takes her to the 6:00 marker because she's moving faster.


In this doodle, I'm showing time which is represented by a wave.
There are 9 seconds shown, but if you were to stretch the wave out, you would see that it is roughly 20 seconds long, crammed into a 9 second span.
But since we are physical objects moving as a second hand on a clock, it goes unnoticed.

Dear boaguie:

"What other than free speculation is this statement, has Russell done experimentation which indicates this is so, and if so, what is it. How would Russell explain to me the presence of a three O'clock shadow, how could there be a shadow if the light was not blocked by an object?"

Good point, unless Russell is actually understating the case. As I argue in my "Proof of a Creator" note ("Metaphysics," last response, 4-7-08), I think Parmenides and Zeno had matters exactly right: nothing in the material reality we perceive actually moves.

This would explain much and unequivocally validate Zeno's paradoxes as more than mere semantics or word games; and nicely and unequivocally resolves them, exactly as he and his mentor argued thousands of years ago. Such a scenario is also implied by Einstein's special theory of relativity, as first discerned by Minkowski and later accepted by Einstein himself.

Your three o'clock shadow is explained-as the late Kurt Vonnegut so succinctly put it in Slaughterhouse Five-as follows: "The moment is structured that way."

As I noted previously, a famous Zen story: Two monks watch a flag waving in the wind. The first argues that the flag is in fact moving, while the latter argues it is the wind. The Zen master happens by and settles the dispute: "Mind moves."

What we perceive as reality is a mere illusion, the same as the apparent movement of characters and scenes within a motion picture. The illusion is generated by still frames being moved and projected. The "projector" of what we perceive as continuous, fluid movement is Consciousness, the primal reality, which is not of the past, present or future. The scenes change in accordance with the algorithm of cause and effect; i.e. "karma."

There was a long span of time before existence, as there will be after existence. You have a sense of time.

What is the relationship between measurement and philosophy?

This post is all about the current limitations in measurement. I have a device that measures your love for me. your love for me is stronger today than it was yesterday. It's not a perfect measurement device, but none are.

Time does not move or travel; that's a metaphor. Does the temperature actually move when the temperature goes up? What is up? It's a direction against gravitational pull. Is there any relationship between temperature and gravitational pull? No. When we say the temperature goes up, its a metaphor.

i haven't read much on time but from what i understood it's just one of the dimensions in space-time. not sure how accurate that idea is now, but...

in the case of the paradox i feel like it is (at least at the surface level) easily shown to be misguided. before achilles can reach the half way mark then he must reach the quarter, and the eighth, sixteenth, and so on and so on. but the question never arises, how fast is achilles going? because if he's going at 1 mile an hour, then he will reach his destination (if it's a mile) in one hour. but how long will it take him to reach half that way? 1/2 hour. one fourth of the way? 1/4 hour. 1/64 of the way? 1/64 of an hour.

when understood as one dimension of space time i think it makes a lot more sense. because while the journey can be divided indefinitely, the time to take the journey will be divided as well.

If time is the result of an explosion, then it has a source and like the sun or a stereo, it will reach out in all directions, which would mean that time travels back into the past. This would imply that time travel is possible but for the lack of light and sound, we could not prove that we were there, unless it is where we dream and perhaps other minds delve.

Since when can time be measured quantitatively especially in respect to the speed of light. To me, time is infinite, existence is simply a phase in time so time doesn't exactly equal existence, because existence isn't the actuality of time. Then again how would actuality exist without reality.

Time and space are intertwined. You cannot have space without time and you cannot have time without space. The intertwining of space and time is shown by the fact that gravity can warp time and motion/acceleration can dilate time (relatively of course).

I don't think you can say that time is infinite since time has a beginning, the same beginning as space, the Big Bang. I think the current theory is that some agglomeration of energy 'blew up' and created hydrogen and helium atoms (space) and time together.

If anyone is interested in further studying Time, I recommend the book About Time by Paul Davies.



I think time can be measured relatively by the speed of light. For example, if a person travels away from Earth at 80% the speed of light for 6 months, then travels 80% the speed of light back to Earth, they will have aged 1 year, while the people of Earth will have aged 10 years. This shows that time can be measured for the person in the space ship relative to the people on Earth. (my numbers are not exact, but they are close enough to use as examples)

Reply: True but this forum is all about speculation and letting yourself and others help to turn speculation into truth:cool:.
I do agree that it is speculation though. If light does not travel at all or take a velocity then how can there be a point in space where space time exceeds the speed of light, solving olber's paradox.:confused:

I thought that space had a beginning, wouldn't it be typically impossible to determine whether time had a beginning. Also, why can't time exist without space. I understand that it is a dimension, but does that mean it is spatial?
Also, what other books could you suggest that talk about space-time, do you know anything about olber's paradox? Thanks:)

Where to begin?

First of all, Light is a wave if you look at it (Fourier Transform) in "Time space" and a massless particle if you look at it in "Frequency space". This is the famous argument between Newton and Hook.
Particle is not a good word for it though. It is more like energy packets.

The speed of light IS the speed of time.

Because the speed of light is the maximum speed of the universe it is what determines time. This is why Time changes based on the observer's speed. The maximum speed of the universe (Light speed) stays constant reguardless of the observer's speed and thus time is constant for both parties individually but the one that is in motion is actually moving faster, or slower in time relative to the observer that is not in motion because the speed of light for the one in motion relative to the one not in motion is different that the speed of light not in motion.

Example. John travel's at a high speed. James is observing John. For both James and John the speed of light is the same. But the speed of light for John relative to James is different than the speed of light to James relative to himself.

According to Jewish Philosophy, and Einstein. Time only exists because we have a memory. The truth is that there is no time there is only now. All things exist in a state of now. No matter what time it is, it is always now. Time is an illusion based on distance. You see the Star, and you are really only seeing the light it emited 1 billion years ago. So your 'now' is the star 1 billion years ago. This is why light, is the speed of time. Because it is the maximum speed of the Universe. It is the maximum speed that information can arrive from one place to another.

I have my own theories that extrapolate from this point, but, until I publish them, I am reluctant to share them with the public.