is time in essence - constant?

yuiop

You are forgetting the wave-particle duality of a photon. When passing through a medium a photon does not necessarily behave like a bullet that slips between the gaps of the atoms. It can behave as a wave that interacts with the electromagntic fields of the electrons in the medium and that is why it slows down. Massive particle can pass through the medium like bullets and can get through quicker than the photons, effectively breaking the "speed of light barrier" in the medium. This results in something similar to the sonic boom of a jet aircraft breaking the "speed of sound barrier". This phenomenon is observed in some nuclear reactors and is known as Cherenkov radiation.

filegraphy

Why can't time be constant? It moves regularly and is slowed by speed. Time allows movement, and movement slows time. Am I correct or have I made a mistake?

Shackleford

Well, it's only variable with respect to a moving inertial frame. An observer in an inertial frame at rest with respect to a clock experiences a constant rate of time, which incidentally is the maximum. I would observe a clock in a moving frame to be running at a "slower" rate of time, i.e. more time would elapse in my frame than in the moving frame. The word relativity is a really accurate term in describing such observed phenomena. lol. Einstein showed it's utterly useless to assign some sort of absolute solar, galactic, or universal standard of time since we would all experience, or rather observe, different rates of time depending on our relative inertial frames. I'm discovering that I think relativity is something I'd want to study more at the graduate level. I've been trying to figure out something in which to specialize beyond my undergrad.

filegraphy

Yeah that makes more sense now. Well put. Thanks.

TCS

What we perceive as time varies with energy density/velocity. However, our rate of time could just be a one dimensional projection of a multi-dimensional concept, where the magnitude of multi-dimensional time is constant.

King Wildog

First, hello, all! I hope I am at home here.

I, as well, firmly believe time is constant. Someone likened it unto a scale previously- and that is exactly what it is. Time only exists in that we have concieved it as a measuring scale for comparison of places or events. That is- it is a figment of our imagination. Perception of time is so easily confused with true time which is the duration of an event or object in its environment acted on by the sum of all vectors. --King Wildog

Scizyr

*performs thread necromancy ritual*

I disagree with your definition of "true time" because it uses the term duration which implies a perception of time. Don't worry I'm not calling you out, I am just using your post as the segue to my argument of the thread's topic.

All time is relative. There is no objective reference that we can point to and say it is how we can measure time as a constant. In effect it really doesn't exist.

How can we then be sure that anything we measure is accurate? Is the speed of light constant in a vacuum? You cannot accurately measure the speed of anything because speed is the measurement of distance traveled through time. Since we don't have accurate/constant time, we can't have accurate speed.

All equations involving time are thus negated.

SR becomes CR(Circular Relativity)

Am I missing something? Please tell me I'm wrong about this.