Understanding Time...?

[Tarantism]

i once had someone tell me that, since time does not exist on an even plane, time sometimes speeds up and slows down. is there any validity to this statement??

[Tormod]

The statement is valid, but not necessarily true. According to relativity theory, time is relative to your position in space-time, or more specifically it is related to your "frame of motion".

 

There has been a lot of discussion about time here at Hypography.

[questor]

does time have mass, or does it just exist? if time has no mass, how would one know it bends ? if time just exists, why isn't it the same everywhere, how could there be reference

points? if time happened concomitant with the BB, then previous to BB, there was no time?

[infamous]

The statement is valid, but not necessarily true. According to relativity theory, time is relative to your position in space-time, or more specifically it is related to your "frame of motion".

 

There has been a lot of discussion about time here at Hypography.

Is it Time to have another discussion about Time? Actually; Just trying to generate a little humor there Tormod.

 

Now that the subject of time has been brought up again, a strange but rather unique thought just occured to me. As human beings, we place a great deal of import on the concept of time. But truly, if one thinks about it, time can only be defined as the passing from one event to another. Scientific experiment has proved that acceleration and gravity can influence the rate at which we pass from one event to the next reducing the concept of time to a variable medium. Science has also incorporated time into the definition for the fabric of space as space/time. Because time is such an abstract concept being variable where acceleration or gravity comes into play, is it really anything of substance? It is true that to figure velocity, 'rate of change in local frame', a measure of time is necessary. But when measuring accelerated bodies or mass associated with a strong gravitational field, this unit of time changes character.

 

This leads me to wonder: Is this abstraction we call time really well enough defined or are we still missing something very basic here? Because the passage through this medium we call time can be so manipulated by acceleration, gravity, and not to mention our own personal perception, it causes me to wonder if we are not seeing the forest for the trees? If science would prove a quantum value for time, then it would become less abstract. It would be interesting to perform an experiment to determine whether this quantum value for the passage of time also changes with acceleration. Just think what it would do to present theory if this quantum value, 'Plank time', for the passage of time didn't change when experiencing substantial acceleration.

 

The next time you ask someone if they have time and they say yes, ask them if they could show it to you, I've never had the pleasure to see, hear, touch, smell, or taste it myself. As for the title of this thread, 'Understanding Time', I think we have a long way to go to achieve this lofty goal.

[questor]

if time can be changed by acceleration or any other influence, it is not a dependable presence. can anyone offer a time experiment where this actually happened ,or is this just

theoretical math? if a theorem cannot be actually proved, why should it be accepted even tho' the math dictates the result ? i think some of the elegant math theories may prove to be false as ''time'' goes by. time is perfectly dependable on earth, why should it not be everywhere in the universe ?

[infamous]

if time can be changed by acceleration or any other influence, it is not a dependable presence. can anyone offer a time experiment where this actually happened ,or is this just

theoretical math? ?

Time dilation has actually been proven, I believe the first test was done on a airliner traveling between continents at an average speed of about 600 MPH. More recently, the space program has added to this verifiable evidence. Time slows down for the accelerating body.

[questor]

does it speed up for a relatively stationary body ?

[questor]

this would lead to variable time throughout the universe. how could we ever know what time it is ? gravity seems to be an absolute , but you're saying time is not ?

[infamous]

this would lead to variable time throughout the universe. how could we ever know what time it is ? gravity seems to be an absolute , but you're saying time is not ?

There is much we don't know about either; Time or Gravity. If we could understand these two characters better, we would find answers to many other physical mysteries.

[CraigD]

can anyone offer a time experiment where this [time dilation] actually happened ,or is this just theoretical math?

One of the most well known, obvious confirmations or Relativity are the clocks on the Global Positioning System satellite constellation, which lose about 3.8*10^-5 seconds each day, a loss that cause their clocks to be about .25 seconds slow over the usual life of a satellite. This time dilation, which must be arithmetically corrected for by the system’s electronics, is predicted by relativity, and within the precision of satellite and ground clocks to measure.

 

Although experimental results supporting Relativity were obtained by a 1971 experiment involving precise clocks flown on commercial airliners, the rate of error and the necessity of discarding data from inaccurate clocks renders these confirmations suspect, more of a field test of then state-of-the-art atomic clocks than a rigorous Physics experiment.

 

Other, more dramatic time dilation evidence involves particles naturally or artificially traveling at high fractions of the speed of light, so are not as intuitive or satisfying as actually putting a precise clock on a fast-moving vehicle, and measuring the discrepancy between it an a precise stationary clock.

 

A concise, partial list of experimental confirmations of Relativity can be found in this wikipedia article.

[paradox]

Because time is such an abstract concept being variable where acceleration or gravity comes into play, is it really anything of substance?

 

I say No

 

just thinking about the human 'interpretation' of time

80 ........ years of human life*

4.5 Billion years of earth life*

13 Billion years of universe life*

 

 

 

 

 

:QuestionM makes me say No

 

 

 

* +/-

[Tarantism]

here-> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec06.html

[HydrogenBond]

Time is associated with changes of state or progression of events. But in all cases there is energy, entropy and force involved to allow a change of state or progession of events. One might notice that some potential is always being expressed during the progression of time. This led me to believe that time was a part of that potential. In other words, time was more than an accounting system. It is also a potential that participates in the progression of events which we measure with time. The variable that I like is time potential. A certain quanta of time potential will result in a particular change of state or progression of events. The rate of time potential useage will determine how much measured time elapses. Contained within this time potential processing are all the things that have time in their equations.

 

To give an analogy. Say time potential is a pile of wood or a pile of wood contains so much time potential. One can build a small fire and stretch the wood burning all day or one can make one big fire that may last an hour. The higher rate of burn would be analogous to nuclear reactions that burn hot. While the slower burn would be similar to chemical reactions. Both process the same time potential but the latter will take more measured time to get the job done.

[lindagarrette]

In other words, time was more than an accounting system. It is also a potential that participates in the progression of events which we measure with time.

 

To give an analogy. Say time potential is a pile of wood or a pile of wood contains so much time potential. One can build a small fire and stretch the wood burning all day or one can make one big fire that may last an hour. The higher rate of burn would be analogous to nuclear reactions that burn hot. While the slower burn would be similar to chemical reactions. Both process the same time potential but the latter will take more measured time to get the job done.

Your analogy doesn't show that time is anything other than a means of measuring events.

[Tarantism]

To give an analogy. Say time potential is a pile of wood or a pile of wood contains so much time potential. One can build a small fire and stretch the wood burning all day or one can make one big fire that may last an hour. The higher rate of burn would be analogous to nuclear reactions that burn hot. While the slower burn would be similar to chemical reactions. Both process the same time potential but the latter will take more measured time to get the job done.

 

not exactly, linda is right, time is much more than just a measurement, but infact the swirling stream of what is, what was, and what will be, and it constantly is consuming the moment and such.

 

some people tell me that time is more like the script to a play, but they believe that it is all pre-determined and you cant change it, i think they are silly, but it is one theory i suppose.

 

well, consider a photon clock. a photon clock is two mirrors with a photon passing between them. each "tick" and "tock" of a "clock" is the photon striking a mirror. to understand time dilation, consider a moving photon clock. According to the theory of relativity, a photon must travel at a constant speed, therefore the path of a moving clock is longer than a clock at rest, so the "ticks" are further apart in time.

 

i do believe that is proof that time actually exists, however it also seems to make the 24 hour clock incorrect and therefore false.

 

i got all that info on relativity from that same link stated above, and i will put it here -> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec06.html as well.

[lindagarrette]

In the space/time universe we live in, there is no "moment" in time. For our purposes there is no present, there is only the past and the future. That's all we perceive. Quantum equations don't recognize time at all. We use it to measure sequence of events. The only events are the ones that have happened or that will happen.

[questor]

time has no mass, no particles, no speed, and exerts no influence. it is just a measurement created by man for separating event intervals. i would say there are moments in time like the instant i strike this keyboard.