Is Time's Speed Constant for Everyone?

[bakenoor]

Hi, I am not a physician and neither do I study physics, I have been to googling to find a good answer with no success. Can someone explain me in very simple and plain terms this concept.

i.e. The concept: Speed of time

 

[Doc Al]

The 'speed of time' does not seem like a standard physics concept to me. Can you give an example of what you are trying to understand?

 

[HallsofIvy]

"Speed" of anything means "rate of change with respect to time". The "speed of time", then, must mean "rate of change of time with respect to time" and is "one second per second"!

That reminds me of an old joke- an (American) easterner comes to a rough and rowdy western town and, after seeing several shoot outs, asks "what is the death rate here?".

The answer is "The same as anywhere- one per person!"

 

[cragar]

maybe you have a question about time-dilation.

 

[bakenoor]

Hi,consider this site and tell me what u think!

<link deleted>

 

[bakenoor]

Is time constant or is it that we assume it to be constant for simplicity!

 

[cragar]

Time is relative to how fast you are going and in which Gravitational field you are in .
For everyday calculations we assume it to be constant , But for some applications we need to use special relativity .

 

[Doc Al]

Hi,consider this site and tell me what u think!

<religious site deleted>

Please do not post links to religious sites--they are not reliable sources of scientific information.

Nonetheless, you are asking about time dilation. Moving clocks are observed to run slowly. See: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c2"

 

[bakenoor]

@cragar, what conclusion can we draw , is time uniform or is it that we consider to be uniform

 

[mack_10]

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

 

[Domenico Mico]

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

Perhaps you will consider what follows purely rhetorical, but it is not. I regard it to be strictly scientific. Now then, if we all travel into the future at 1 second per second and if the definition of the second still stands, that is:
The second as the basic unit measure of time, which not very long ago was determined with reference to the rotation of our planet, it is now officially defined as: «the time required for the speed of light to travel a distance of 299.793 kilometres in vacuum»; 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". 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]

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".

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.

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".

This seems even worse.

 

[Domenico Mico]

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>.

 

[Domenico Mico]

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.

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.

 

[Doc Al]

Domenico Mico:
Please fix your use of quotes. Your last two posts are impossible to decipher.