Is time the measurement of energy transfer, not time dilation?

[tennismike22]

Well, I've held an idea for some years now. And the first person that can change my point view, I'll gladly send a $100. No joke. I'm doing this so I can move on from my thinking and it will be well worth it. So just prove my following statement wrong. YES IT'S THAT EASY!

Time is the measurement of the Transfer of Energy

Why do I feel this way. First let's look at the "Twins Paradox" which has been tested and seemingly proved correct by using atomic clocks aboard jumbo jets. What scientists believe is that time has slowed down. Check out this You Tube cliphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdRmCqylsME"I don't disagree with the result, but I disagree with the causation. I feel the amount of energy transferred is less for the atomic clock on the plane. How can I prove this? Easy.

Muons as noted by Professor Paul Davies decay less when they travel closer to the speed of light. Here's a quote from his book, About Time.

“ Instead of decaying in a few microsecond Earth-time, a high-speed cosmic-ray muons can live for much longer, long enough to reach the ground”Basically, as you travel closer to the speed of light, less energy is transferred for mass. It's that simple.

I have further notes, but just disprove my above logic.

So just prove my statement wrong. Tell me my logic of disproving time dilation was wrong. Just don't use verbal semantics. I was an Economics major not an English major.
I would love the opportunity to hear from physics majors or whoever may have an opinion.

At the end of the day I don't believe time is a dimension. No just the Measure of the Transfer of Energy. Our existence is embedded within the three laws of Thermodynamics. I've written more, but I'll leave it short.

 

[tiny-tim]

"energy transferred"

I feel the amount of energy transferred is less for the atomic clock on the plane.

Hi tennismike! Welcome to PF!

I don't understand your "energy transferred".

Transferred from what to what?

 

[tennismike22]

Energy transferred from one state of existence to another. Like a muon decaying. Hope I was clear with the muon example. It's decay process is less the faster it travels. Paul Davies noted that.

Use the two guys on the plane from the Youtube clip. Let's say you replace the atomic clocks with decaying pieces of matter. One piece of matter on the ground and the other on the plane. The decaying matter on the plane would have less mass transferred away from it. Mass as we know is just a condensed form of Energy.

 

[Andy Resnick]

There is indeed a relationship between energy and time- Noether's theorem states that invariance to time implies conservation of energy (just as spatial isotropy corresponds to conservation of momentum).

But a 'transfer' or energy does not logically link to time: thermodynamics is all about energy flow and transformation, yet it is time-independent.

 

[russ_watters]

Energy transferred from one state of existence to another. Like a muon decaying.

What's a "state of existence"?

You are unlikely to find anyone to help you understand these issues until you learn the basic vocabulary of the subject. You idea simply doesn't make any sense otherwise. That said, by the standard definitions of time and energy[transfer], the two are only related insofar as "energy transfer" in measured in a quantity per unit time.

Many physical clocks involve/use energy transfer to help in their measurements, but not all, and ones that do mostly do it because they aren't perpetual motion machines. The Original Clock, for example, (the sun) does not require constant energy input because of conservation of momentum of the Earth's rotation and revolution. Similarly, if you could build a bearing with no friction, you could set an object spinning and use it to tell time without noting a transfer of energy.

 

[Integral]

This site has a policy which forbids the discussion of personal theories. Please reread the site guidelines you agreed to upon registration.

Thread locked.