Is Time just a quantitative description for fastness or slowness of motion?

[amk_dbz]

Is Time just a quantitative description for fastness or slowness of motion??

I am a bit confused about how to express what I have been thinking about this topic but will try.
When we say that time is going fast we compare it with our daily fastness of motion(??)..
We imagine stopping time as stopping the motion of objects around us..and speeding time as fastening the motion around, right?

 

[harrylin]

I am a bit confused about how to express what I have been thinking about this topic but will try.
When we say that time is going fast we compare it with our daily fastness of motion(??)..
We imagine stopping time as stopping the motion of objects around us..and speeding time as fastening the motion around, right?

It depends a bit on the context, but time is not in general just a quantitative description for fastness or slowness of motion. In a certain way it's even the opposite: fast moving clocks are measured as ticking slower, and then it's said that "time" goes slower ("time dilation").

What you could have in mind, is that if a satellite with a quartz crystal clock is sent into space, it's expected that the clock's vibration speed will slightly increase (for high enough orbits). And as this will be true for any physical process of things that are sent along with it, it can be said that in that satellite "time goes faster".

 

[DragonPetter]

We already have a quantitative description for fastness of motion with respect to time, its called velocity, and if motion is constant, it is: $\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}$

If the numerator is held constant, and the denominator is increased, then it will appear that motion is slowing down. If the denominator is held constant and the numerator is increased, then it will appear that motion is speeding up.

Time, by itself, is not a quantitative description for fastness.

 

[amk_dbz]

We already have a quantitative description for fastness of motion with respect to time, its called velocity,

True, but the fastness/slowness of displacement is being compared to standard fastness/slowness a.k.a 1 second, So velocity is also being compared to fastness of 1 second or ultimately time...

 

[amk_dbz]

It depends a bit on the context, but time is not in general just a quantitative description for fastness or slowness of motion. In a certain way it's even the opposite: fast moving clocks are measured as ticking slower, and then it's said that "time" goes slower ("time dilation").

What you could have in mind, is that if a satellite with a quartz crystal clock is sent into space, it's expected that the clock's vibration speed will slightly increase (for high enough orbits). And as this will be true for any physical process of things that are sent along with it, it can be said that in that satellite "time goes faster".

I mean to say that what we perceive as time is the fastness/slowness surrounding objects with respect to the object we are considering.

 

[DragonPetter]

True, but the fastness/slowness of displacement is being compared to standard fastness/slowness aka 1 second, So velocity is also being compared to fastness of 1 second or ultimately time...

Again, our concept of fastness is with relation to time, but never just time by itself. If I tell you simply "the ball moved for 5 seconds" you have no concept of motion or how quickly motion occurs even when compared to a standard second, but you seem to want to imply that it does. If it implies anything, its how much you've moved through time - but now you have lost any kind of idea of fastness or slowness, its simply a time displacement. If i tell you "the ball moved for 1 meter / 5 seconds", now you have an idea of motion and how quickly the motion is happening. Time by itself tells you nothing of motion, let alone how quickly or slowly the motion is happening. It only tells you something about fastness or slowness when related with other variables, and so your original premise that time is a quantitative description of how fast or slow motion occurs is not accurate.

To make it clear, if your premise was true, that time quantitatively describes fastness and slowness, then a police officer could pull you over and say "you were going 4000 seconds", and you would respond "I thought the limit was 3000 seconds!" and it would mean something. To us, it does not mean anything and never will unless its related to a distance as well.

 

[amk_dbz]

Thank you for helping.
Your logic seems right to me. I will think upon it and my previous beliefs and re-post if any problem.

Thank you all again.

(BTW Nice example at the end DragonPetter)

 

[amk_dbz]

I was wondering about this topic and about the answer given by DragonPetter. With reference to the answer given by DragonPetter, aren't you associating something to the fastness/slowness given by time??

Like i can say 25cars are crossing the line on the road per second, here i give the fastness of the line being crossed by cars by associating it with time.


Thank u in advance.