1
   

The Speed of Time.

 
 
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 05:05 pm
@boagie,
The speed of light is the speed that light travels in order to stand still : this is counter-intuitive. But every photograph that was ever formed with light is still-frozen in time. Light is expressing the inherent nature of the universe : stillness...
Binyamin Tsadik
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 06:10 pm
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus wrote:
The speed of light is the speed that light travels in order to stand still : this is counter-intuitive. But every photograph that was ever formed with light is still-frozen in time. Light is expressing the inherent nature of the universe : stillness...


The speed of light is not dependant on light, because light rarely travels at this speed.
The speed of light is the Maximum speed of the Universe and this is the speed of time.

It is the fastest speed that information can travel
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 01:22 am
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler;10537 wrote:
Two things that we assume in our existence to be unwavering are the speed of light and the speed of time.

Well, there's a falsehood right off the bat. What do you mean by "we"?
Your "we" don't include "me", so, speak for yourself, please? Thank you.
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 01:32 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;28267 wrote:

The speed of light is the Maximum speed of the Universe and this is the speed of time.

It is the fastest speed that information can travel

Actually, that is not so. 'Information' can be intantaneously 'sent/arive' at opposite ends of the earth (or universe) theoretically unbound by time or distance. See 'superpositional spin', quantum entanglement....
Binyamin Tsadik
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 02:48 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Actually, that is not so. 'Information' can be intantaneously 'sent/arive' at opposite ends of the earth (or universe) theoretically unbound by time or distance. See 'superpositional spin', quantum entanglement....


Both theories do not involve the transfer of information. There is not movement; there is not traveling.

IE. Graviton, or Light
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 05:11 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
I never suggested that the speed of light was dependent upon anything including itself, but just that where it can it expresses it own nature, and no doubt by way of the non-resistant...the non-obstructant...the non-refractant...through stillness...
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 05:34 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;28317 wrote:
Both theories do not involve the transfer of information. There is not movement; there is not traveling.

Is that so? They most certainly can! Is not 'information' somehow involved when one 'spin' appears to affect, immediately, a distant spin? Is 'spin' not 'movement'? That information is 'sent/passed', somehow, is one interpretation of the evidence. There are other intetrpretations.
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 05:37 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Deleted double post
0 Replies
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 05:48 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
Is that so? They most certainly can! Is not 'information' somehow involved when one 'spin' appears to affect, immediately, a distant spin? Is 'spin' not 'movement'? That information is 'sent/passed', somehow, is one interpretation of the evidence. There are other intetrpretations.


How is that information transfered? Through which medium? What is the system of information?

What may appear to be instant may actually have a transfer speed. It is still theorized that the change in spin may affect another particle at the speed of light.

These things are still unknown.

Reguardless the fastest speed of the universe is the constant 'c' and this remains the speed of time.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 06:09 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Yo!!Smile

I have a queston, if time is local, in that it involves the spheres that are in relatively close proximity to us, we being effected by their gravity and rotations, this might be said to be local conditons which effect our biology and cognitive perceptions of say day and night. Is a condition of relative objects truely something one can consider tangiable, is it not dependent upon perception, upon the effect these bodies have upon our biology, is time then not the local condition of planitery bodies in relation to one another and to us, our biology. Is not the rotation of the earth, the speed of time?
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 12:24 pm
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;28460 wrote:
How is that information transfered? Through which medium? What is the system of information?

I do not support a 'linear' perspective. There are many who do and find meaning, and paradox, in their 'cause and effect' notions. Those are questions that they ask and (presumably) answer, or theorize.

Quote:
What may appear to be instant may actually have a transfer speed.

Perhaps, but the speed of light is negligible. It is an immediate action according to all extant means of measure. Instantaneous. That is faster than the 'speed of light in a vaccuum'.

Quote:
It is still theorized that the change in spin may affect another particle at the speed of light.

The evidence shows otherwise.

Quote:
These things are still unknown.

Unknown because there is no accepted 'theory' that quantum entanglement is a speed of light phenomenon. It has been demonstrated as instantaneous.

Quote:
Reguardless the fastest speed of the universe is the constant 'c' and this remains the speed of time.

Actually, 'c' is the 'speed of light in a vaccuum'.
Regardless of your personal beliefs, your statement is incorrect, regardless of times repeated.
And the "speed of time" is redundant. Time = speed = space = the illusion of 'motion'.
The 'speed of time' is whatever you perceive it to be.
'Time' is a relic of Perspective, nothing more; a 'locally perceived' phenomenon, and not basically inherent in existence, as is being further verified in the scientific world daily.
Binyamin Tsadik
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 06:07 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:

The 'speed of time' is whatever you perceive it to be.
'Time' is a relic of Perspective, nothing more; a 'locally perceived' phenomenon, and not basically inherent in existence, as is being further verified in the scientific world daily.


From a philosophical perspective but not from the perspective of Physics.
Time and Space are linked by the constant 'c'

This is known by a simple Fourier transform
Binyamin Tsadik
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 06:15 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Yo!!Smile

I have a queston, if time is local, in that it involves the spheres that are in relatively close proximity to us, we being effected by their gravity and rotations, this might be said to be local conditons which effect our biology and cognitive perceptions of say day and night. Is a condition of relative objects truely something one can consider tangiable, is it not dependent upon perception, upon the effect these bodies have upon our biology, is time then not the local condition of planitery bodies in relation to one another and to us, our biology. Is not the rotation of the earth, the speed of time?


The rotation of the earth is a periodic motion. Because it is a periodic motion it can be a measure of time.
Every rotation has the same time interval (approximately) so you can count time based on rotations.
0 Replies
 
nameless
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 07:37 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;28753 wrote:
From a philosophical perspective but not from the perspective of Physics.

Again incorrect. Do a search on 'the impossibility of time' and 'time is impossible'.. that sort of thing. You'll see what some top physicists are thinking these days about time.
The following links are from some different, yet convergent Perspectives;
This

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Bur****.html
(Where you see stars in the above address, you need to replace them with the diminutive form of 'Richard' that begins with a 'd'. For some pathetic reason, this site idiotically censors the word d*i*c*k ... his name is Burd*i*c*k (without the stars)! Sheesh!)

And here
Or perhaps here
Or maybe this
am I wasting my 'time'?
If not, here's another on the impossibility of motion
And another
And a bit more about 'time' if you wish to go a mathematical route...
That aught to be some food for thought if you are interested.

Bye the bye, science is a (-n informing) branch of philosophy.

Logic trumps empiricism, and so does praxeology. If someone came up to you and said, "I just observed something that is A and not A at the same time," you wouldn't chuck out logic. You'd probably think the person was crazy, or look for some basic error in their assumptions (e.g. an fallacy of equivocation, one of their A's is not really identical to the other.) If someone told you that they saw water running uphill, you wouldn't say, "Oh well, the law of gravity doesn't hold." Again, you'd look for errors in assumptions related to the law of gravity. Was it an optical illusion? Was energy added (a hand pump?) Did it occur in a space capsule? Similarly, if someone says a rise in price, of apples, gold, iPods, or labor, didn't result in lowering sales, you don't chuck out the praxeological law that people prefer more to less. You look for assumptions that don't hold. Was it really ceterus paribus, or unconsidered factors effect it?

It's a whole new game now...
You're welcome.
Enjoy the links.
Later...

****
update;
2 days later and not a word, Binyamin. I imagine that you didn't read any of the links that I generously provided. I imagine that someone found some food for thought.
That shows me (and any perceptive lurker) that you aren't interested in 'truth' or 'learning' or 'evolving', but merely in propagating your pet thoughts/beliefs; part of the mental ossification process.
oh well
carry on
nameless out
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 08:59 am
@nameless,
The science of time will always change but the understanding of time will always be personal..I always thought of time was like travelling on a train and looking out the window..We cant look backwards or forwards only at the direct picture we see unfolding before us..Interesting landscapes go fast boring bits go very slowly..We as humans are governed by our experiences of time and the speed of it is only a comparison to our involvement with time.You only need watch to know, not Einsteins theory..activity creates time ,can we imagine no time is the question...
Anthrobus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 11:13 am
@xris,
I understand : that TIME might be an 'abstraction of events'. However I wish to be counter-intuitive once again. The maximal speed of TIME is in fact its non-speed : there are no events from which to abstract TIME from, as everything stands still. Everything below this maximal speed is in fact what we call the speed of light. But the maximal speed of light is its nature, and its nature is stillness, everything below the maximal speed is its anti-nature, and its anti-nature is flux...hows that for counter-intuitive...
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 02:05 pm
@Anthrobus,
Anthrobus wrote:
However I wish to be counter-intuitive once again.


I think you've achieved this quite nicely.
Binyamin Tsadik
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 03:13 pm
@Khethil,
Time on its own does not exist. It only exists because of change. Like boagie was saying earlier. Light is the fastest change and is therefore the speed of time.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 04:07 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
but light is not the fastest ,thats the point...how do atoms communicate faster than light? do they communicate without time? science changes our concept of time but it can never change our relationship to time...
Binyamin Tsadik
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 04:24 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
but light is not the fastest ,thats the point...how do atoms communicate faster than light? do they communicate without time? science changes our concept of time but it can never change our relationship to time...


Atoms communicate by something known as the Graviton or a similar wave that transfer's 'charge' information.
The Graviton travels at the speed of light.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Speed of Time.
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 09:48:38