1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Is our time browser based?

  1. Jul 27, 2016 #1
    You've heard about the difference measured in clocks at the top and bottom of a tall building.

    The Great Pyramid of Khufu 139 meters high. The top has been experiencing a slower passage of time than the bottom for some 5,000 years. Yet they are in the same location in space-time. Mount Everest is 8,848 metres and is even more old.

    What is going on? Why don't things gradually disappear?

    A browser takes components from all over web and packages them as a web-page.
    Is 'our time' view taking components from a range of time and packaging them as a NOW?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 27, 2016 #2

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    No they are not.

    Also consider the following example from Riemannian geometry: Rotate a sphere. There will be points on the sphere that are nearby, yet travel different distances, even if the rotation is completely rigid.
     
  4. Jul 27, 2016 #3

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Why do you think that they should disappear?
     
  5. Jul 27, 2016 #4

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    How would such a disappearance even look like?
    The top of Mount Everest was there 10, 100, .. years ago, and will (probably) still be there in 10, 100, ... years, independent of the precise amount of time a clock on top will measure there.

    I don't see how this would be related to a browser.
     
  6. Jul 27, 2016 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm sensing perhaps a sci-fi popularization issue....
    In Back to the Future, when McFly starts to disappear, that's due to him altering the time line to one where he doesn't exist, not a mismatch in times.

    In Star Trek, when people "phase" out of view, that's tecnobabble; gibberish.
     
  7. Jul 27, 2016 #6
    Does the OP think that an object only exists at one point in time? And it moves forward in time, leaving the past vacant? (Like in the Langoliers)

    No, objects are extended in the time direction. It's probably more correct to view things in terms of world lines, which stretch out into the past and future.
     
  8. Jul 27, 2016 #7

    CWatters

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Presumably the OP has read that time passes faster in weaker gravitational fields and assumes that means the top of mount Everest ages and erodes faster than the bottom?
     
  9. Jul 27, 2016 #8

    jbriggs444

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    My take was some kind of "if time up top is passing faster than at the bottom then the top must be receding into the future and will eventually disappear".

    Untrained intuitions can come up with that kind of stuff.
     
  10. Jul 27, 2016 #9
    Heres a far out theory for you. Time travels at the same speed everywhere. It is the same time now over at the edge of the known universe or in the centre of a black hole as it is here. It is now and it will be tomorrow. Gravity and other energies affects the measuring instruments, not time. Gravity causes decay, it does not change time. Makes perfect sense to me, is that not what Einsteins theory of relativity says?
     
  11. Jul 27, 2016 #10

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I think @Khashishi found the right point.

    There is no difference between those. If everything runs slower, then time passes slower - by the definition of "passage of time". You can invent a new parameter that does something different, but then you should not call it time, and it also has no particular application in our universe.

    Please keep in mind that physicsforum is not a place for personal speculations beyond mainstream science.
     
  12. Jul 27, 2016 #11
    As mainstream physics said to ... everybody who was ever proven them wrong.
    Honestly, I am not trying to make enemies or cause trouble on the forum, and I apologise for confronting the status quo. I am just searching for answers to unanswered questions.
    No difference between what? Time and decay? Time and the clock?
    I tried to respond but i'll have to put it off for another time (he), perhaps in another discussion. For now, lets just say I see flaws in the argument that time is variable.
     
  13. Jul 27, 2016 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It's great that you want to learn, but you may want to consider that a whole lot of people put a whole lot of time and effort into figuring out this thing that you are just starting to dip a toe into - and that the best course of action is probably just to be a sponge and absorb what is already very well understood.
     
  14. Jul 27, 2016 #13
    I expect that the elements at the bottom of the pyramid will decay faster than those at the top, not only because of the static load of the rock and atmosphere above, but also minus to a lesser degree due to the forces of gravity, and furthermore how it 'bends' around the solar bodies and gets it its orbital velocity and solar wind.
     
  15. Jul 27, 2016 #14

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    This strikes me as a mish-mosh of misunderstandings so poorly expressed as to not even be wrong. I suggest you do some reading on the fundamentals of the concepts before posting further. Follow the rule of "when you realize you dug yourself into a hole, stop digging."
     
  16. Jul 27, 2016 #15

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thread closed temporarily for Moderation....
     
  17. Jul 27, 2016 #16

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thread will remain closed per the PF rules.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook