The discussion centers around the concept of the "speed of time," exploring whether time is constant for everyone or if it varies based on factors such as speed and gravitational fields. Participants delve into related ideas like time dilation and the implications of special relativity, while also addressing the terminology and conceptual understanding of time in physics.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the concept of the "speed of time." There are multiple competing views regarding the nature of time, its constancy, and the implications of relativity, leading to an unresolved discussion.
Participants express uncertainty about the terminology used and the assumptions underlying their statements. The discussion reflects a variety of interpretations of time's behavior under different conditions, without resolving the complexities involved.
Please do not post links to religious sites--they are not reliable sources of scientific information.bakenoor said:Hi,consider this site and tell me what u think!
<religious site deleted>
mack_10 said:In general we all travel into the future at 1 second per second, object that are traveling quickly (significant percentage of the speed of light) move into the future more slowly as do object in intense gravitational fields
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
All you've done is take a meaningful statement about the speed of light and replace the word 'light' with the word 'time'. So you're saying light = time? Seems rather meaningless.Domenico Mico said:further, if the second of an ordinary clock is understood to be a time-second, we may then say that "the speed of time is 299.793 kilometres per second in vacuum".
This seems even worse.Over and above, we may want to express ourselves with a unit measure for radial expansion rather than linear extension and say in a much more appropriate way: "the speed of time is 299.793 kilocycles per second in vacuum, or better still 299.792.458 cycles/sec per second".
Doc Al said:All you've done is take a meaningful statement about the speed of light and replace the word 'light' with the word 'time'. So you're saying light = time? Seems rather meaningless.
the way you put it is well and truly meaningless. I would have said: c=space to conform to the linear extension implied by <kilometres per second in vacuum>.
Doc Al said:All you've done is take a meaningful statement about the speed of light and replace the word 'light' with the word 'time'. So you're saying light = time? Seems rather meaningless.
Doc Al) Over and above said:It is here to conform to the radial expansion implied by <cycles/sec per second> that you should have put your c=time.
However, I did not mean to get involved this way. I was merely elaborating on a statement made by mack_10, actually a discerning statement which went to the core of the question asked by bakenoor.