The Speed of Time.

[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.

[de Silentio]

Time: It's all relative my friend.

Man, you are all over the place, I don't even know where to begin. I start typing then think 'Nope, that won't do'. You have provoked many thoughts on time, specifically it's tangibility.

I enjoy thoughts and discussion on time, although it has been a while. I think there is two ways we have to look at Time, our perception of it and it's existence apart from us. Then again, we also have to look at it either scientifically or philosophically. One of the biggest problems I have with Kant, is his Transcendental Aesthetic. However, I do not have a problem with Eisteins conception of time. The former is philosophical (and insane) the latter is mathematical (and also insane).

If you are interested in reading about time, I suggest the book "About Time" by Paul Davies.

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.

Light is also a wave, sometimes, and it is also particles... or, a particle-wave. Sound is collections of particles that move through a medium at different compression rates, we translate it as a wave.

[Aristoddler]

Yeah I was kinda everywhere at once with that thought.
I went a few days without much sleep and tried to think clearly...it didn't work out so well.
I was always under the understanding that light was a beam, however. If it was a wave, then it could theoretically "miss" hitting things that are small enough to pass mention.

[de Silentio]

What do you mean by beam?

From what I understand, light demonstrates properties of both waves and particles. I don't think we really understand all that light is. There is a lot of websites out there about light.

What interests me most is the relation between time, light, and space, as exemplified by Einsteins theories of relativity. Why is it that mass and speed determine the flow of time? Then, why is it that we always experience time flowing the same, even though it is flowing different for me than it is for you?

If my last sentence didn't make sense, try this on for size. If I travel 80% the speed of light away from Earth for 6 months (my time inside the space ship), then travel back to Earth at the same speed, 1 year will have passed for me, but 10 years will pass for you on Earth. We both experience one second the same, but when we join again, we will be separated by 9 years.

Even though you probably already knew this, I just love to think about it.

[ogden]

Aristodler, hello and great post, I really like talking about this kind of stuff so I apologize for the length of this post.

These are topics that are aided by physicists so I hope one will pick up and guide us. I say that because I know very little about physics, but perhaps enough to be of use.

It is important to remember that the units of measures we use to understand the physical world are just measures. By that I mean it is easy to forget that time is just a manmade unit of measure that represents changes (succession) in the physical. Whatever unit we use to mark and measure this succession is irrelevant because the units are manmade tools. A second’s duration is only what we agree to determine it is.

Time is perceived as linear because of the one directional progress indicated in “past, present, and future”. Einstein’s theory of special relativity (Lorentz transformation) indicated time is not a constant but is actually altered as one approaches the speed of light. Einstein used the same example you did of time being as a river meandering across the universe speeding up and slowing down. Time is not constant although meandering and traveling backward are still linear. In the case of meandering it is not a straight line, and in the case of backward only indicates direction of travel along the path. Jumping from past to future without going through present is the only way I see of time being nonlinear, and even a wormhole would not do this because you would start at present and travel to future or past through the linear connection of the wormhole. So I say time is linear succession without necessarily being in one direction or straight.

The wormhole, by the way, is thought to be possible and consistent with laws of physics. The problem is at the entrance of the wormhole (event horizon), would require negative matter to open, witch has not been found yet, and quantum physics and Einstein’s general theory of relativity don’t jive. That is why Einstein and scientists today are working to find a unified field theory, a theory that can explain every property throughout the entire universe.

Light is an electro magnetic force. It is both particle and wave depending on how you slice it. Photons are particles but they don’t behave like we think particles should, I mean they travel in waves. The speed of light is what Einstein used for constant in his general theory of relativity E=MC2. The C represents the constant speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas, Latin for swiftness). This C speed is used in calculations but light passing through atmosphere or a gravitational field is slower than light traveling in a vacuum. So we should not think of light as being constant in all situations.

In quantum mechanics there are states of matter that behave in ways that seem to not make sense. At certain levels/conditions our words and concepts (and math) are not sufficient in describing the relations and phenomena that occur in quantum mechanics. This is heady stuff and I don’t have enough knowledge to really discuss it so I will leave it at that.

I think Hume’s discussion about identity, unity, and succession is a useful way of analyzing our perception of time. Each instance of time is separate from the next and so is a separate perception. If you look at a river today and then look again tomorrow and say that is the same river you are not correct because the water has moved on and is not the same water as yesterday. We unite separate instances of time and perception into one identity by our imagination and the objects real contiguity. If you came to the river later and it had been modified into an aqueduct with concrete sides and bottom you would not think it was the same river because of its in contiguous appearance. On the other hand, a magician may show you a handkerchief and then using slight of hand show you another one that looks like it and you would say it was the same.

Anyway, I will stop rambling now and give someone else a chance

[Donald Schneider]

Dear Ari,

How fast does a "second" move? One second per second?

This is the problem, which is why I believe that Parmenides and Zeno were exactly right, as implied by Einstein's STR. I made this point on my own note.

All measures of time we can conceive of need be based on the movement of matter, such as the Earth's rotation and its revolution around its sun. Thus, we can just as correctly state that one second is 1/86400 the time it takes for the Earth to make a complete rotation as we can maintain that it takes the Earth 86400 seconds to accomplish the same. Either way of putting it, we label this occurrence a "day."

But if you would analyze this, it doesn't answer your question about the "speed of time." It just provides a circular reference that begs the question.

Inherent within the question is a degree of subjectivity. A week to Christmas for a child seems an eternity; to his or her parents trying to get everything done in preparation, it seems a fleeting moment. An adult Mayfly might live a single one of our days; yet perhaps it seems a reasonable life expectancy to them.

I believe there can be no answer to what is the speed of time other than "zero," as I believe the matter we base all measurements upon is in fact static. The illusion of movement, and thus time and its speed, comes from the universal consciousness which is the underlying (and only) reality.

Have you ever run in a dream? If so, who or what decides how fast and far you run and how fast and far that seems? In reality, how fast and how far have you run?

What is the arena where everything takes place? What has always been present whenever you have observed, felt, thought or experienced anything and in its absence you could never truly attest anything has happened except by inference after it reemerges?

[de Silentio]

The speed of light is a constant because no matter how fast a person is travelling toward a beam of light that is moving away from them, that beam of light always travels at a constant speed away from the person.

For example, if I were to throw a baseball 50 mph, then ran after it at 25 mph, the ball is in effect moving away from me at 25 mph and I would eventually catch up with the ball.

If I shine light away from me at 300,000 kps, then run after it at 150,000 kps, it is still moving aways from me at 300,000 kps.

[Aristoddler]

I only have a minute, so I'm only going to address one thought tonight, and the other two tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Donald Schneider

Dear Ari,

How fast does a "second" move? One second per second?

That is what I was speaking of.
One second is one second...kinda.


Take a tape recorder that has high speed dubbing capability.
Turn on the radio and press record.
Now change the speed to hi speed.
Now change it to higher speed.
Change it to normal.
Repeat the process for five minutes.

Now play it back, and see what it sounds like.
You recorded it in three increments, but the broadcaster only spoke one speed.
This experiment will show you what I mean. By the speeds changing repeatedly, but the tape playing in one speed, you can see that the broadcaster will sound slow, slower, and normal.
Picture this as time going by in variant speeds, and us being the tape recorder.
We perceive time as constant because we exist within it, and no other reason.

Gotta go for now, but there's more that makes sense...promise.

[rado]

"If science knew what LIGHT actually IS, instead of the waves and corpuscles of incandescent suns which science now think it is, a new civilisation would arise from that fact alone.

Light is not waves which travel at 186.000 miles per second, which science says it is, -- nor does light travel at all."

Walter Russell, in "A New Concept of the Universe"

[boagie]

Originally Posted by rado

"If science knew what LIGHT actually IS, instead of the waves and corpuscles of incandescent suns which science now think it is, a new civilisation would arise from that fact alone.

Light is not waves which travel at 186.000 miles per second, which science says it is, -- nor does light travel at all."

Walter Russell, in "A New Concept of the Universe"

rado,

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?