The Speed of Time.

[Aristoddler]

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.

[Donald Schneider]

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."

[Billy]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

Here's a thought.

Two things that we assume in our existence to be unwavering are the speed of light and the speed of time.

Light continues in a path until something opaque blocks it, or something translucent refracts it and dilutes it to the point where it is no longer tangible.

Time continues as long as existence continues, since time is indirectly a measurement of existence.
Existence by definition is the state of exist.

Time = Exist.
Light < Time.

Tangents aside...

Our only tangible method of determining the length of a unit of time is something that exists inside of time. This makes it biased according to its' own existence.
A second is measured by something physical, in an effort to measure something intangible.
It's like trying to use a physical device to measure love. You can't do it. The statement, "My love is seven meters thicker for you than it was yesterday," is impossible to draw a conclusion from...it's inane.

Take a piece of string that is a foot long, and take another that is an inch long. By visual comparison you can tell that they are obviously different lengths.
However if you take an hour of time from the pockets of the universe and a minute of time from another pocket of the universe, then who is to say that the length of time is uniform?

Light is a beam. Sound is a wave.
Who is to say that time is any different than sound is? Or a meandering river, for a more illustrious example.

If I am driving a car and you are my passenger; you cannot tell what speed we are moving by simple feel alone. I can accelerate and decelerate at my leisure without you noticing.

If time is the driver, and exist is the car...then where is the proof that time is not accelerating and decelerating at its' own leisure, or even linear for that matter?

Non-Linear time.
I can drive my car down Centre Street, past 1st avenue, 2nd, 3rd and 4th.
This is how we assume time travels. A straight tangent.
I can also drive my car down Cantre St, turn on 1st, drive up Laurier St, turn back to Centre, and down Chrysler Crescent to bypass 2nd without seeing it, and end up on 3rd before driving to 4th.
This is non-linear, and how time could travel.

Now to take it a step further even...

Non-linear time moving at a faster/different rate that linear time moves at, could theoretically be how time moves.
But since we're only passengers, we can't tell.

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.

[chandler]

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.

[urangutan]

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.

[Holiday20310401]

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.

[de Silentio]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

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.

Since when can time be measured quantitatively especially in respect to the speed of light.

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)

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by boagie

rado,

What other than free speculation is this statement?

Reply: True but this forum is all about speculation and letting yourself and others help to turn speculation into truth.
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.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

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.

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



)

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

[Binyamin Tsadik]

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.