The Speed of Time.

@Binyamin Tsadik,

so why have you not responded to my references on atomic communication or subatomic particle speed in lasers being faster than light...instantaneous is quite a lot faster than light..

1 Reply

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

This is not time, this is perception of time. There is reality independant of perception.
Time is measured by periodic osscilations. Light is the fastest periodic osscilation. If you were to have light go back and forth between two points it would be the fastest periodic osscilation. This is the maximum speed of the universe (MUV). Time cannot go faster than light. That is what Einsteins Equations prove. For every frame of reference light travels the same speed but space stretches. So time changes based on speed because the relative light speed for both frames of reference are different. Time is directly proportional to that difference.

First of all, there is a reason it is called the Theory of Relativity and not the Law of Relativity. I think you are taking Newtonian physics for granted.
Secondly, what makes you believe that reality is independent of perception. I would challenge you to prove your existence to me so that I know you are not a figment of my imagination.
Third and finally, Relativity does not account for modern advances in quantum mechanics and particle physics. It is good at explaining a few things but terrible with others. for instance, relativity does not account for wave states outside of the particle field of existence but we know they are there.

In my humble opinion, you are not going the full distance. You cannot know a great deal about one subject and claim to be an expert on all subjects. One has to be willing to admit they could be wrong, only then can that person find truth

1 Reply

@Binyamin Tsadik,

I disagree on most of this Razz

Speed is an observation not a constant. Light therefor is not constant, however it is in your reality, depending on how you apply it.

Your also putting all light in one category, there are many many types of light. Again speed and oscillation's whether of harmonic or not are to the observed, by the observer.

Agreed on the Newtonian physics point above. Your messing about in reality trying to understand something beyound. Quantum theroy again,

You must not use Newtonian physics to try to make something come to "light" pun intended Wink

-BaC

Binyamin Tsadik wrote:

This is not time, this is perception of time. There is reality independant of perception.
Time is measured by periodic osscilations. Light is the fastest periodic osscilation. If you were to have light go back and forth between two points it would be the fastest periodic osscilation. This is the maximum speed of the universe (MUV). Time cannot go faster than light. That is what Einsteins Equations prove. For every frame of reference light travels the same speed but space stretches. So time changes based on speed because the relative light speed for both frames of reference are different. Time is directly proportional to that difference.

0 Replies

@xris,

I am not sure to who this question is for?

The word Instantaneous is again a product of reality, by the observer and the observed.

If you have ever seen a fast fast machine(your choice of what) before that you wouldn't have believed it be possible. Since your reality says I have never experienced such a speed, therefor it can't exist.

-BaC

xris wrote:

so why have you not responded to my references on atomic communication or subatomic particle speed in lasers being faster than light...instantaneous is quite a lot faster than light..

1 Reply

@Icon,

Very Well said!

"Reality is independent of perception" a perfect example!

Perception is via reality, again shed those bounds and you will see truth..so to speak :perplexed:

-BaC

Icon wrote:

First of all, there is a reason it is called the Theory of Relativity and not the Law of Relativity. I think you are taking Newtonian physics for granted.
Secondly, what makes you believe that reality is independent of perception. I would challenge you to prove your existence to me so that I know you are not a figment of my imagination.
Third and finally, Relativity does not account for modern advances in quantum mechanics and particle physics. It is good at explaining a few things but terrible with others. for instance, relativity does not account for wave states outside of the particle field of existence but we know they are there.

In my humble opinion, you are not going the full distance. You cannot know a great deal about one subject and claim to be an expert on all subjects. One has to be willing to admit they could be wrong, only then can that person find truth

0 Replies

@BaCaRdi,

BaCaRdi wrote:

I am not sure to who this question is for?

The word Instantaneous is again a product of reality, by the observer and the observed.

If you have ever seen a fast fast machine(your choice of what) before that you wouldn't have believed it be possible. Since your reality says I have never experienced such a speed, therefor it can't exist.

-BaC

A product of reality so what else is there but reality??I dont live in planet Zog..i only know reality....

1 Reply

@xris,

And that is your limitation while speaking of Reality. Why can't you live in planet Zog?

I don't know..lets say someone had some issues with their minds. You can tell them as much as you want that this so-called planet doesn't exist. And they reply well I saw it so it must be real.

-BaC

xris wrote:

A product of reality so what else is there but reality??I dont live in planet Zog..i only know reality....

1 Reply

@BaCaRdi,

BaCaRdi wrote:

And that is your limitation while speaking of Reality. Why can't you live in planet Zog?

I don't know..lets say someone had some issues with their minds. You can tell them as much as you want that this so-called planet doesn't exist. And they reply well I saw it so it must be real.

-BaC

Well you tell me how to get there and ill gladly report back to you on what i see

1 Reply

@xris,

Hatred for ones thought is not enlightenment sorry it doesn't work that way.
I leave you with this thought; Are you not a product of science? Even if you do believe in "god"?

I can't tell you how to achieve the enlightenment that I believe you are seeking. You must know how to use your own "tools" what ever they are.

-BaC

xris wrote:

Well you tell me how to get there and ill gladly report back to you on what i see

1 Reply

@BaCaRdi,

im not looking for the light im looking for some sense in your posts..

2 Replies

@xris,

You need to learn much more my friend, your simply are asking the wrong questions. How is that my fault?

Try reading some more, it may help;

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/2544-what-constant.html#post3010

xris wrote:

im not looking for the light im looking for some sense in your posts..

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

im not looking for the light im looking for some sense in your posts..

I must agree with Xris on this one.

Bac: I have, with some difficulty, read back through your posts a couple of times here in the hopes of finding where you're going or what the relevance of your point(s) is/are. I get the sense you're very inspired - and very confidant - in this line of thought, yet it escapes me what that is or where that place might be. Where are you going with this?

Apologies in advance if my lack of knowledge in this area warrants a dumbing-down of the content Smile

Thanks

0 Replies

@Aristoddler,

Allow me to humbly attempt clarification.

Many Philosophers, including Descarte and Locke have shown the fallacy in the belief that we are truly real. You see, we are all living within a box of sorts. We cannot experience reality from any point of view but our own. You are locked behind your senses in a box called the mind. Both Descarte and Locke were expounding on the "Cave" theory which Plato so effectionately named.

These should be your first stop for research.

Now, the most recent advances in math have to do with Quantum and Particle physics. We are discovering, through science and experimentation, that "reality" is not only something we can only experience from our "box" but also something that we, ourselves, influence. For example: A particle, which has been removed from its natural position, is always in a wave form until observed. This means that time does not effect the particle until we, the observer, decide its quantum state by interacting with it through photons. Once we interact, a quantum state and relative position is decided according to how we interact. This can be researched as "Observer effects on waves" demonstrated through the "Double Slit Experiment". Through particle physics, we are finally realizing that particles follow very specific and predetermined paths so long as they are not acted upon by external forces (Newtonian Physics), however, they do not always follow the Newtonian model for movement when acted upon by external forces such as gravity and magnetism. Many times, they follow a completely opposing path.

So what have we learned from this?
Newtonian physics, by all mathmatical standards, is flawed.
We can not prove that reality is truly something outside of our minds since we cannot experience outside of our minds
We are actually creating the world around us by influencing quantum states.

With these three facts (notice I did not call them truths) we can come to the conclusion that

A) Time is not dependant on anything except our perception of motion in a particle universe which means time itself is nothing more than our perception

B) Quantum states alter the passage of time from definite to infinite

C) Time is and always will be created by the mind. Example: Touching something hot can make an hour seem like a second but, on the other hand, the first caress of a beautiful woman can make one second seem like three lifetimes.

Hopefully this clarifies what BaC and I have been trying to say. He certainly has the linguistic skills of a degree holding intelligence but sometimes it requires someone a bit more down to earth to explain these rather unorthodox, but valid, theories.

1 Reply

@Icon,

Im afraid you have illuminated but not resolved my problem with this concept...it appears philosophical rather than factual...My relationship with time is not the same as science nor is it the same as my grandsons...Measurements of time in science are they valid?

1 Reply

@xris,

Unfortunately, the best answer I can give you is yes and no.

Because we have invented a scale by which to meassure time, the scale itself is valid, however, the scale can be tipped or altered by ones perception so in that way, no it is not valid.

Like most things created by man, there is a duality of existence here. One which you understand and one which we all agree to use. I find that the two differ more often than not.

1 Reply

@Icon,

But surely our view of time is by the movement of our sun and the length of our lives, we can understand a thousand years a minute a day...our relationship to it can personally change but not our measurement of it...Science can also say in certain circumstances beyond our experiences it can slow or change but our reality does not change..Knowledge does not change time, my day is just the same as my grandfathers..If you are questioning reality by the movement of a certain particle in a scientific condition how does that change time?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

But surely our view of time is by the movement of our sun and the length of our lives, we can understand a thousand years a minute a day...our relationship to it can personally change but not our measurement of it...Science can also say in certain circumstances beyond our experiences it can slow or change but our reality does not change..Knowledge does not change time, my day is just the same as my grandfathers..If you are questioning reality by the movement of a certain particle in a scientific condition how does that change time?

I'm not questioning reality by the movementof a particle. What I am questioning is reality as an idea.

I have no degree in science. I have only even been to one semester of community college, however, I have dedicated most of my life to understanding existence. My studies began in philosophy and expanded to math as the next logical step. See, philosophy has its limits in that nothing can be proven where as math has its limits because nothing can be experienced (or rather, everything is experienced differently by different people).

So both are incomplete. But when you combine the two, you start to see a more complete picture of the world. Where math can define time and divide it into years, minutes, days, seconds and so forth, it has yet to truly provide evidence that reality is to me what it is to you. This means that math is based entirely on assumed constants or, even worse, false constants. Since our personal experience DOES alter reality, there is no such thing as a mathmatical constant. Only that which we designate and define. This is where the time scale seems valid; IS valid. But since math itself comes into question of validity, anything done through math has an inherent flaw. This is where the time scale ceases to be valid. We are told what length of time a year is which is why we experience a year in similar terms but a hard year can seem like forever and an easy year can float by like nothing.

Reality is not as simple as 1 or 0, yes or no, true or false. Reality has many different variables which alter with each individual. What is true for me may not be true for you and so all aspects of reality must be taken with a grain of salt including reality itself. There is no way that I can prove my existence to you. There is no way that I can prove that I am nothing more than a result of your comatose dream. Likewise, there is no way you can prove to me that YOU exist. When existence itself is unproven, all aspects of existence must be considered as variable rather than constant. Does that make any sense?

1 Reply

@Icon,

It does but i thought you where trying to prove that realty does not exist rather than it could be an illusion...your not alone in pondering on time and reality but we can only be certain of certain things in life and our musing must be kept in check by our known senses or we can be accused of being poets rather than logical humans..Ive had experiences that defy time and the enormity of it amazes me but it is totally lost on those i tell..there is another time another place but we should tread carefully..

0 Replies

@Aristoddler,

To me reality and illusions are synonyms.

-BaC

0 Replies

@Aristoddler,

I suppose my proof is not that reality does not exist but rather that is does not exist in the same way for more than one individual.

"Ive had experiences that defy time and the enormity of it amazes me but it is totally lost on those i tell."

This is, I suppose, my EXACT point. Your reality in that moment was beyond the comprehension of anyone else and yet it was no less a part of reality than the breakfast you had this morning. We experience reality differently and have an inadequate way of relating our experiences to others which doesn't help.

So time, like all things, is completely independent of a combined reality and yet, also very much a part of it. The more I learn, the more I realize that nothing is as simple as 1 or 0 and yet, everything is simple in just that way. Only when you deny what you've been taught, trust what you experience and then revisit your knowledge can you understand the true distance between what you think you know and what is real.

1 Reply

The Speed of Time.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know