Is time linear?

I'm not sure, but how is time affected when one flies in an airplane, and the rotation of the earth is the basis of time?

Again one can see that 0 is not the opposite of 1.

This is a mistake I make and many do in discussion, polar variables are classed as the extreme one can easily witness.

My above post contains the entire explanation of that, it is the same for orbiting and field expanse crossing space vessels... Time is different inside the vehicle to the observer here, but not different at all, since the field is accounted for.

If your having some difficulty with 0-1 arguments pertaining to every form of polar reaction, off axis polarities are the answer, +/- (+%v+)/(-%v-)

It is difficult to calculate at subatomic level, finite particles appear infinitely diverse.

Well based off of Einstein's special theory of relativity when you are moving at a speed close to the speed of light you perceive time differently from an observer onlooking. So when something amasses a speed close to the speed of light time dilates and you age slower than someone who is on earth (assuming you are traveling in space).
Think of it this way, if you travel to a planet that is 10 light years away and you return you would have aged much slower than everyone here on earth has. The faster you move the more time dilates. If we get in a car and travel we would still age slower than someone at rest but it is such a small number that it doesn't make a difference.

To the first poster: The clock signals the motion of earth when rotating on its axis. The motion is taken using the Sun as the reference, the earth rotates and faces the Sun, and every time a fixed point faces straight the Sun, this rotation period is called a day. For more accurate purposes, the period of a day has been divided in parts (hours, minutes, seconds, nanoseconds)

Time is nothing but the comparison of motion between bodies. In this case, the motion of earth in comparison to the Sun gave us the day and year (rotation and orbit of the earth towards the Sun).

The same applies to the motion observed with the vibration frequency of the atom of Cesium, which is used in the atomic clocks. The device counts 9'192,631,770 vibrations and whoa! you have a second.

So, you know now that time is nothing but a measurement, where without a fixed motion of a body you can't make a clock to base a data.

About our internal clock, we just fall in illusions all the time. You are bored and you will fill that "time passes by very slow", you are very busy and "time pass by very fast". Nothing but illusions, because you perceive motion and no motion around you will make you feel that time passes slow. This demonstrates as well that time is nothing but a measure based in motion.

The Relativity theory of Einstein is nothing but pure fantasies. It was validated by a fraud committed by Eddington, who made make ups to the plates of the expeditions to validate Relativity at all cost (read Einstein's Luck book). In reality time can't dilate, such is ridiculous as to say that you eat a lot and get fat and heavy and Einstein tells you that you are not the affected one but that "weight" (the measurement itself) is heavier because your diet... ha ha ha.

Well, such is what Relativity is, garbage to the square.

Time, in its best definition, is the data obtained by the comparison of motion of bodies. This includes decay, because decay is also motion of micro-particles or micro-organisms that will cause the losing of properties.

No big deal about what is time, unless you want to cross the border of science and get into the world of fantasies, where you can read about time dilatation, black holes, parallel universes and all those ridiculous ideas that run in science books.

I agree, you might even say ´time´ doesn´t exist.

No, how the hell can those dumb physicists make absurd theories and what have you, in which they use ´time´, but in the meantime don´t know what ´time´ is, it really is ridiculous offcourse.
Hence the nonsense of ´relativity theory´, time dilation and all that nonsense.
{see the tread on debunkung relativity). How the hell can something that doesn´t exist dilate or watever? But whoooooee the whone who says so, blasphemie! right?

Ohhhh how do I agree!!!! I hadn´t read your posting before I posted mine.

well, I go further then your statemenst and say ´all of "All of Modern physics" is very dumb and idiotic and haven't brought us anything at all!

Time is made up of circles, that's why clocks are round.

But according to Batman; the past affects the future as well as the future affecting the present and everything else.

Hi, I know you are probably expecting a sciency reply, as this is why you put the question here. Yet, I want to go philosophical. For example, in the religious sense, it seems like different religions have their own interpretations on time, and that's usually the main distinction of religions. Christianity believes that time is linear, and in Buddhism,cyclical.

Why would anyone thumb down your post?
I gave it a thumb up out of mercy, even though I did not quite understand it

That depends on what is intended by the words "for you."

Your clock will slow down (compared to one motionless or moving slower). But you will not notice that when going about you business. Everything slows down, so you can't detect any difference.

Forgive me if this distinction has been made already. I haven't read the whole thread yet.

Heh, that is deemed to be a "comprehensive explanation" of what time is?

Who knew?

1. Why would you say that a stationary observer is "not possible?"

2. On what grounds are you claiming to "know" that?

When Magellan first circumnavigated the globe he kept very detailed and precise logs. Every time the sun "went down" and then "rose again," a new day was recorded.

When he got back to Spain (or wherever he came from) it turned out that a day was missing from his logs.

According to him, it was, say, January 1, but according to Spanish calendars it was January 2. According to him 644 days had passed since he first left port, but according to the Spaniards, 645 days had passed (those figures are just arbitrary, for the sake of example).

How could this be? Because he himself (but not the Spaniards) actually went all the way around the globe, he saw one less "sunrise" and "sunset." Each day, inch by inch, mile by mile, he was very slowing moving away from the place he saw the sun rise on day 1 (Spain). Put another way, he experienced one less revolution of the earth than a stationary party would have.

He did not "go back in time." Nor did "less time" elapse for him and his crew. He simply came up with a different "measurement" of that time, due to his motion.

If you do that, you can use special relativity to predict the time difference that will accrue between two clocks. But, using SR, those predictions will be wrong.

The Hafele-Keating plane experiments showed that, compared to a stationary clock in Washington, D. C. a clock on a plane travelling west lost time (went slower), while a clock on a plane travelling east gained time (went faster).

On it's face, this appears to be contrary to what special relativity (but not some other theories of relative motion) would predict. In order to make accurate predictions (i.e.. one's that matched the actual, recorded empirical results), they could NOT use the Washington clock as a reference point. They had to use a hypothetical clock located at the non-rotating ECI (earth-centered inertial) frame of reference.

I am assuming that the Washington clock would comport with what you are positing as "rotation of the earth is the basis of time."

Maybe you meant something else.

Everyone please forgive this layman's ignorance, but aren't we talking about a specific definition of time? Aren't physicist talking about a different type of time when asking what is the time time of day? Isn't the time of day based on the Earth rotating on it's axis and the sphere's 360 degrees divided by 15 (per every thousand mile) giving us 24 hours?

That the time of year is based on the Earth's revolution orbiting the Sun?
So are we asking is time linear in accordance to the physicist definition of time or the time we use to record our time here on Earth?

We can mentally think beyond a linear frame work I believe... even multitask. But can we physically experience up and down, back and fort at the same time experiencing a non-linear existence? If were able to travel back in time would we be traversing still a linear path?

Which is different then moving faster then the speed of light and retarding our aging process.

Perhaps that is where the confusion comes from?
Perhaps independent definitions of the different Times are needed to lessen the confusion?

It's actually just the other way around, Arg. Positing that simultaneity is "relative," as Einstein does in his theory of special relativity, simply leads to an infinite number of "standards" for ascertaining the time. All these "independent times" merely create confusion and generate so-called "paradoxes."

All that is easily avoided by simply positing that simultaneity is absolute (not relative) and developing your "theory of relative motion" from there. Such theories have been called AST (absolute simultaneity theories). When it come to making accurate predictions, they are every bit "as good as" (and in some cases better than) special relativity, so it's not like there is no choice, or that one has been empirically proven to be right, and the other wrong.

So you are saying that both Times, daylight saving time,Greenwich time, Pacific time, eastern standard time etc, is the same as space time that Einstein was talking about in his theory of relativity?

No, I'm not saying that, Arg. I guess I wasn't really responding to your specific point. I was just responding in general by saying that multiple definitions generally confuse things when you're trying to talk about the same thing, e.g., time.

To be more specific, you asked:



If you are asking that question, then I think that, using the parameters you gave, time is NOT linear (if "linear" is taken to mean steady and constant). The speed at which the earth revolves around the sun is not constant, from what I understand. Nor, I think, is the rate of daily rotation absolutely the same for each day of the year. Physicists use averages (based on sidereal time, not "solar time") for example:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

There are all sorts of different definitions given at that site. A few examples are: (1) Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time (GMST) (2) Local Apparent Sidereal Time (LAST), and (3) Greenwich Apparent Sidereal Time (GAST).