# A New Theory of Time

1. May 17, 2004

### Francium

My Theory is based on the notation that the reason we experince time in a smooth motion is because we are also travelling in a smooth motion. if we took the centre of our galaxy as the origin of a scale and calculated our speed relative to it then we could design a scale of relativity, and calculate a the time for everything within our galaxy just according to its velocity. SO time is not a dimension, it is a velocity.

Time is affected by your speed relative to something else. The speed limit is the speed of light. But what is the minimum speed limit? If you were to travel at the speed of light, time would stop. I also beleive that if you could travel approximately 0ms-1 relative to everything else then time would also stop. But where would this place be?

Imagine the Earth, people at the north pole travels slower than people at the equator but they have the same day. This is a flaw, becasue time is affected by tiny amounts we just dont notice it. The interesting thing is that a sphere is the only object where you cant experience the same time (velocity) at any 2 points at any one time, you have to take into account the velocity that the earth is travelling around the sun and the velocity that the sun is travelling around the milky way and possibly the velocity the milkly way is travelling around an axis of the universe.

The minimium speed limit came from thinking where could i physically travel slower so i thought the slowest point on the earth relative to the centre of the milky way must be the centre or the earth. Then i thought goto the centre of the sun and your velocity is even slower, then the galaxy and eventually the universe. My idea is that times minimum speed limit is at the centre of the universe. Experiment: If we were to travel to the centre of the universe and you were to experience time ( at 0ms-1 time stops like at lightspeed) then you could argue that your still in motion therefore there must be a larger body exterior to our universe in which we rotate around. So this experiement could tell you if there was anything beyond our universe without actually going there. But it will be a long time before anyone will be able to carry out this experiment.

I hope this theory makes sense, and i appreciate any flaws anyone can find from it.
This is all my original work.

Christopher Hatchard

Last edited: May 17, 2004
2. May 17, 2004

### energia

time dilation has never been tested at relativistic speeds

the only way to conclusively test the theory - is to build a spacecraft capable of speeds up to 99% c with an atomic clock onboard and measure the time dilation compared to a stationary atomic clock

then check the time dilation at all velocities (in discreet incrememnts) up to 99% c (ideally) or at least 80% c

if the dilation at all velocities match the predicted values of SR then relativistic time dilation is a fact

Last edited: May 23, 2004
3. May 17, 2004

### jcsd

Energia - Erm, what about muon decay?

4. May 17, 2004

### baffledMatt

Not true. How else do you explain the observed lifetime of a muon?

edit: hehe jcsd beat me to it!

Well, thankfully they do so far.

Matt

5. May 17, 2004

### Francium

My theory is based upon his, so if he was right would that make my theory more possibly valid?

6. May 22, 2004

### energia

muon decay is not proof of the dilation scale predicted by Relativity Theory
where c = 100 dilation

it may be proof that muons do not like being accelerated to 99% c

but muons are not the basis of time

the only way to validate the claim conclusively is with mutiple chronometres
one stationary and one accelerating to near c

(yes that's right, real physical clocks)

Last edited: May 23, 2004
7. May 22, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Velocity is the ratio of distance,r, over time, t, $v = \frac{r}{t}$. In infinitesimal calculus it is given by.

$$v= \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \frac{\Delta r}{\Delta t}$$

In special relativity, this v has a maximum value of c, the speed of light in vacuum. And c implies that the spacetime interval must be zero.

$$ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2 = 0$$

where $dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2$

$$c = \frac{dr}{dt}$$

Last edited: May 22, 2004
8. May 23, 2004

### energia

I'm not disputing the mathematical model

I'm simply stating that time dilation has never been proven or even tested onboard a spacecraft accelerating to near c

since no such spacecraft exists

in fact the fastest spacebucket we've got only goes 8000 m/s

which is 0027% c

at this velocity time dilation is predicted to be only 000364501%
losing 36 µs per second

I would accept the theory as conclusive fact as soon as this test has been performed at least up to 1% c (375 x faster than the space shuttle), until then I will accept it as a viable theory and not a proven fact

Last edited: May 23, 2004
9. May 23, 2004

### Antonio Lao

But why bother testing time dilation onboard spacecraft? Time dilation has been tested in subatomic processes and it agrees with the theory.

But Einstein did use the idea of an accelerating elevator(or spacecraft) for thought experiments that led to his Principle of Equivalence.

Last edited: May 23, 2004
10. May 23, 2004

### 12345

energia.........i thought spacecrafts at the moment travel at 0.1% of c?

or do i have the wrong end of the stick?

Last edited: Jun 2, 2004
11. May 23, 2004

### energia

what you are suggesting is that if the universe has an absolute centre of mass, like a huge sphere for lack of a better analogy, then time at this centre of mass would in effect stop

so if a crew onboard the spaceship - 'HMS Deathwish' were to travel to this central point of mass - they would be frozen in time (a great mission objective)

your reasoning is quite logical, however if the theory is correct, then it would take longer and longer to reach the centre of the universe the closer the ship got to the centre, since time would be slowing down proportionately with proximity of cosmic central point (if that makes any sense)

so it would take an enternity to finally reach this centre

all of this is assuming that the universe even has a centre or a boundary of any kind, which i do not believe it does

the definition of universe being 'all that exists' including space and anything beyond space; the term universe is often used to mean 'visible universe'
or 'local universe'

in the 15th century the term 'universe' refered to the known world (earth)

it's quite easy to test your theory without digging to the centre of the earth
or to the centre of the sun, where it's very hot indeed (especially in the summer) :tongue2:

all you would need to do is drag an atomic clock to the south pole
and another atomic clock to the equator

and measure the dilation between the 2 clocks

according to SR there should be no dilation (0%) since the 2 points on the earth are stationary relative to one another

if any dilation what-so-ever is measured, then you're theory would be validated

12. May 23, 2004

### energia

the space shuttle has a top speed of 8000 m/s

the speed of light is 299792458 m/s

1% of 299792458 m/s = 2997924 m/s or 10 million km per hour

Speed of a Space Shuttle

13. May 23, 2004

### energia

subatomic particles don't wear wrist watches

and Einstein's ideas were thought experiments - not real life experiments

it's real life experiments that provide conclusive evidence

thought experiments provide theories

Last edited: May 23, 2004
14. May 23, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Wrist watches are made of thousands and thousands and thousands of subatomic particles. That's is why they called such thing as atomic clock (the most accurate clock in existence by modern technology standard).

15. May 23, 2004

### energia

atomic clocks use frequency dividers to count periods of caesium 133 radiation

1 second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

to my knowledge the period of caesium 133 radiation has never been altered in a particle accelerator

a clock is a machine - it's not the particles or components that make 'time'

time is a temporal dimension of spacetime

and no one has ever proved that time itself changes relative to an observer in motion as predicted by SR through all velocites up to c

the most obvious way to test it conclusively is (as I said) to compare a stationary clock to a clock travelling at velocities approaching c

a whole working clock, not just the particles in the clock

Last edited: May 24, 2004
16. May 23, 2004

### 12345

if you were to compare a clock travelling at the velocity of c, to a stationary clock, the stationary clock must be slower.but it depends where the stationary clock is.

the clock has been made for humans to use. nature will not see the seconds which humans termed themselves.

second = 1/86,400 of a day= 9,192,631,770 beats of a cesium 113 atom.

17. May 23, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

GPS.

"Relativistic speed" is any speed at which the effects of relativity are measurable. Clearly this is different for different types of measurements - an astronaut on the space shuttle won't notice it on his/her wristwatch from launch to landing, but to a GPS satellite, accounting for it is critical to its operation.

18. May 23, 2004

### swansont

While it's true that a muon is not a clock, its decay can be used to measure a time interval. And as such, it has confirmed relativity.

19. May 24, 2004

### energia

this is not in dispute

the only issue im raising is that time dilation has never been proven to match the scale predicted by Relativity Theory

someone posted a time dilation table in this forum
if you look at the table and go down the list of percentage points

time dilation has never been verified percentage point by percentage point
all the way up the scale from 0% to 100% c by a set of real clocks

clocks are not time itself - but they do a good job of measuring time
in a precisely quantized format

it's not so easy to measure the age of an astronaut
or measure the exact age of a particle to the last decimal point

and so far dilation has only been tested at slow speeds (satellites)
far below even 001% c

and at super high speeds (particles) in the range of 99% c

but nothing in between

now do you see my point?

please say that you do, or I will have to bang my head on the table

20. May 24, 2004

### 12345

^ i would b truly amazed if any physical clock can withstand c.
"time dilation has never been verified percentage point by percentage point
all the way up the scale from 0% to 100% c by a set of real clocks

clocks are not time itself - but they do a good job of measuring time
in a precisely quantized format"

it has been constructed for humans to define a certain moment of time. without the clock it would be very hard to guess the precise measurement of time ourselves.