- #31
Tom Leigh
Like what? To me time is movement and the primal movement is thought. Unless something moves there is no time, surely?
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the nature of time and its relationship with speed, particularly in the context of Einstein's theory of relativity. Participants explore the idea that time is relative and may slow down as an object approaches the speed of light, suggesting that this could lead to a scenario where time effectively "stops" at light speed. The conversation also touches on the concept of time as a dimension and its distinction from spatial dimensions, with some arguing that time behaves differently than other dimensions. Additionally, the notion of "speed of time" is introduced, proposing that time may have its own rate that could be measured. Overall, the dialogue reflects a deep inquiry into the complexities of time, speed, and their interrelation in the universe.
Physics news on Phys.org
Alexander
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
Time is the direction of the increasing of entropy.
There is no such direction.
Entropy is just a fraction of states occupied. Let any system to occupy more states - it occupies more then. Nothing here gives time a "direction".
newton1
- 151
- 0
well...
i don't think we should find the speed for the time
time is just a coordinate...like a space
time is not a thing ...there is no particles inside the time
i don't we should consider the speed of a coordinate...
only the object moving on the coordinate have time
i don't think we should find the speed for the time
time is just a coordinate...like a space
time is not a thing ...there is no particles inside the time
i don't we should consider the speed of a coordinate...
only the object moving on the coordinate have time
automaton
- 10
- 0
havnt physicists accelerated post light/stopped it
i have unfortunately no link currently
however my friend and i read somewhere
where in a special gas light had been accelerated
i also heard light had been decelerated and "stopped"
i will google and
heres a new search engine] www.kartoo.com
try to find references
anyone else seen this data?
i have unfortunately no link currently
however my friend and i read somewhere
where in a special gas light had been accelerated
i also heard light had been decelerated and "stopped"
i will google and
heres a new search engine] www.kartoo.com
try to find references
anyone else seen this data?
LogicalAtheist
Yes - light can be slowed down. No one said it couldn't!
Here is a pointer.
The rule is that NOTHING can CROSS THE BARRIER of C.
Objects at one moment going below C cannot cross. Objects going over C will never EVER drop below C.
If you guys are trying to understand what happens as something approaches light, I'd suggest you look at relativistc equations.
From those you can derive that, when V = C you have a few different variables (mass, momentum, length, time) which can in the EQUATIONS but not necessarily in reality, adjust such that it will be possible.
You will find that it is the mass and length (therefore momentum) which adjust. And not time.
No one said time travel at any other "speed" than what we travel at time now, would occur if one approaches C. the point made is that relativistic time changes.
If you want the relativistic equations I can get them for you, otherwise takes to long to type, but that's a good starter into looking at what would occur.
Here is a pointer.
The rule is that NOTHING can CROSS THE BARRIER of C.
Objects at one moment going below C cannot cross. Objects going over C will never EVER drop below C.
If you guys are trying to understand what happens as something approaches light, I'd suggest you look at relativistc equations.
From those you can derive that, when V = C you have a few different variables (mass, momentum, length, time) which can in the EQUATIONS but not necessarily in reality, adjust such that it will be possible.
You will find that it is the mass and length (therefore momentum) which adjust. And not time.
No one said time travel at any other "speed" than what we travel at time now, would occur if one approaches C. the point made is that relativistic time changes.
If you want the relativistic equations I can get them for you, otherwise takes to long to type, but that's a good starter into looking at what would occur.
LogicalAtheist
WHY TIME EXISTS.
RULE #1 - Only one "unit" of mass can occupy a space. For instance two cars cannot be parked in the same space. But, we as humans have certainly seen two cars parked in the same space. This is the world of NO-TIME.
How have we seen this occur? We call this time. A scalar of some magnititude measured between one mass occupation and another mass occupation. This is OUR WORLD.
That is an easy understanding.
RULE #1 - Only one "unit" of mass can occupy a space. For instance two cars cannot be parked in the same space. But, we as humans have certainly seen two cars parked in the same space. This is the world of NO-TIME.
How have we seen this occur? We call this time. A scalar of some magnititude measured between one mass occupation and another mass occupation. This is OUR WORLD.
That is an easy understanding.
Last edited by a moderator:
LogicalAtheist
Drag - Time is absolutely a scalar quantity.
Alexander said: Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate.
Absolutely not!
Please drive your car to EST 9:23 PM October 21st.
I think perhaps what you were saying is that, if we assume our universe is 4 dimensional, that a coordinate could be
(X, Y, Z, T)
X Y Z being a special location, and time being well, it's special little self.
There we have a coordinate. But each of those independantly is not a coordinate.
So now I could say meet me at (from some universally known X = 0 Y = 0 Z = 0 and some universal time T) (308.34, 123.3, 123.65, 3434:234:88)
And there I will have milk and cookies waiting.
That would work just fine!
Alexander said: Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate.
Absolutely not!
Please drive your car to EST 9:23 PM October 21st.
I think perhaps what you were saying is that, if we assume our universe is 4 dimensional, that a coordinate could be
(X, Y, Z, T)
X Y Z being a special location, and time being well, it's special little self.
There we have a coordinate. But each of those independantly is not a coordinate.
So now I could say meet me at (from some universally known X = 0 Y = 0 Z = 0 and some universal time T) (308.34, 123.3, 123.65, 3434:234:88)
And there I will have milk and cookies waiting.
That would work just fine!
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,097
- 1
Well, if you for example believe some thingsOriginally posted by Tom Leigh
Like what? To me time is movement and the
primal movement is thought. Unless something
moves there is no time, surely?
exist independently of our consciousness then
you could say that time is not just the above.
Live long and prosper.
totoro
- 42
- 0
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
WHY TIME EXISTS.
RULE #1 - Only one "unit" of mass can occupy a space. For instance two cars cannot be parked in the same space. But, we as humans have certainly seen two cars parked in the same space. This is the world of NO-TIME.
How have we seen this occur? We call this time. A scalar of some magnititude measured between one mass occupation and another mass occupation. This is OUR WORLD.
That is an easy understanding.
well..that's an easy understanding but it give me an insight to rethink my idea. thanks.
how long is i second for us that is still and how long is 1 second for someone moving at 0.9c? and why? that's the speed of time because every second is different for any object moving at different speed, IMO,what do you think?
LogicalAtheist
Originally posted by totoro
well..that's an easy understanding but it give me an insight to rethink my idea. thanks.
how long is i second for us that is still and how long is 1 second for someone moving at 0.9c? and why? that's the speed of time because every second is different for any object moving at different speed, IMO,what do you think?
TOTORO - It's important to remember that time is relativistic.
So let's say, cuzz I don't want to do the formula right now, that one second to the traveler, which is called proper time, is one second. But the person watching the travel is 1.2 seconds
Those two times are relativistically equal.
One time is for one person, the other for the other. You can't compare the two and say one is fast.
It unfortunately isn't correct.
So traveling faster does not speed up time. It only changes the dilation of time between you and a stationary person starting at the same point.
totoro
- 42
- 0
Originally posted by Alexander
Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate. Dimension is defined as a degree of freedom to move back and forth in, but how to move back and forth in time?
Also, time is scalar value (can be positive or negative, but does not have direction). So is each dimension of space. To be a vector, you need at least 2 numbers. A bunch of spatial coordinates, or space and time coordinate(s) can be considered a vector (if it has at least 2 quantities).
alexander, I'm wondering if time is not a dimension, then why all the physicist says that time is the forth dimension beside the three spatial dimension. and now there's even more dimension in string theory but time is still consider a dimensionin this theory. this is as far as i know. (maybe i have a wrong definition about time)
totoro
- 42
- 0
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
TOTORO -
One time is for one person, the other for the other. You can't compare the two and say one is fast.
i don't understand why i cannot compare the two. can you please explain more detail for me.
newton1
- 151
- 0
Originally posted by Alexander
Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate. Dimension is defined as a degree of freedom to move back and forth in, but how to move back and forth in time?
Also, time is scalar value (can be positive or negative, but does not have direction). So is each dimension of space. To be a vector, you need at least 2 numbers. A bunch of spatial coordinates, or space and time coordinate(s) can be considered a vector (if it has at least 2 quantities).
i am not agree with u
time is exactly a dimension
you say time can be positive or negative,the does not have direction
then what the positive and negative mean??! you don't think it sound strange?
and the dimension can be a coordinate
space is have 3 dimension
the coordinate of space is (x, y, z) ...
time is a dimension and aslo a coordinate
so our world is 4 dimension and have coordiante(x, y ,z ,t)
LURCH
Science Advisor
- 2,549
- 119
Originally posted by totoro
well..that's an easy understanding but it give me an insight to rethink my idea. thanks.
how long is i second for us that is still and how long is 1 second for someone moving at 0.9c? and why? that's the speed of time because every second is different for any object moving at different speed, IMO,what do you think?
Well, if you take that track, then the speed of time is c. Get to that speed, and you come parellel to time. You keep pace with a specific moment and become "stationary" relative to it.
"Time does not pass; we do."
newton1
- 151
- 0
Originally posted by totoro
i don't understand why i cannot compare the two. can you please explain more detail for me.
because our world relavite
no matter it is a time or speed
just like maybe you saw that person is fast
but i saw that person is not too fast
some people saw that person is slow
because our universe have no a absolutely stationaly frame
so we have no absolutely time and absolutely space...
your time is not absolutely frame ...
so you can't compare with other people time
LogicalAtheist
Lurch - with the little I know in this area, I think you bring my thoughts to the table.
The speed of time probably would best be defined as C (in a vacuum).
Because you always hear how traveling faster than C is time travel. I do not understand why it is time travel, but thus we in fact are traveling at some time LESS THAN C.
The speed of time probably would best be defined as C (in a vacuum).
Because you always hear how traveling faster than C is time travel. I do not understand why it is time travel, but thus we in fact are traveling at some time LESS THAN C.
newton1
- 151
- 0
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Lurch - with the little I know in this area, I think you bring my thoughts to the table.
The speed of time probably would best be defined as C (in a vacuum).
Because you always hear how traveling faster than C is time travel. I do not understand why it is time travel, but thus we in fact are traveling at some time LESS THAN C.
this because when we travel with C
our time will stop
travel faster than C can be a time travel is just a imagination
no any theory can prove
totoro
- 42
- 0
Well, if you take that track, then the speed of time is c. Get to that speed, and you come parellel to time. You keep pace with a specific moment and become "stationary" relative to it.
this is really what i mean...but i don't know whether it's that the speed of time is c or not. and i want to add something. this mean that we will never get over c.
LogicalAtheist
Totori - really there is no speed of time. But if we want to bend the wording and create such a term, then the speed of time is C, bencause as stated above time stops at C.
In an ocean, at C you sit on top of the wave forever, go further and you slide down, go back to you fall backwards.
As I stated earlier the rule is the SPEED OF LIGHT cannot be breached.
If you are <C you can't go higher and if you are >C you can't go lower than C.
In an ocean, at C you sit on top of the wave forever, go further and you slide down, go back to you fall backwards.
As I stated earlier the rule is the SPEED OF LIGHT cannot be breached.
If you are <C you can't go higher and if you are >C you can't go lower than C.
totoro
- 42
- 0
there's something that i forget to say, this is an interesting i read from book.
if an object is standing still,then it is always travel at the speed of c in time dimension.but when this object moving at some speed, some of light-speed motion through time will diverts to light-speed motion through space.that's why time for a moving object is slowwer than the time for a stationary object. what do you think about this?
if an object is standing still,then it is always travel at the speed of c in time dimension.but when this object moving at some speed, some of light-speed motion through time will diverts to light-speed motion through space.that's why time for a moving object is slowwer than the time for a stationary object. what do you think about this?
LogicalAtheist
Totoro - please repost your concept in a way that makes sense. It's missing many words and thus I can't even tell what you're saying.
Tom Leigh
Time and whether it exists.
To me time is the passing of information through consciousness, which you physicists never include into your equations. Have you read the book, The End of Time, The Next Revolution in Physics, by Julian Barbour. He postulate that time doesn’t exist at all. (You can find him on the web)
I agree with a lot of his arguments, but he too tries to leave consciousness out of his equations and it just doesn’t work. Think about it. Unless you are consciousness nothing exists for you. If none of us were, if consciousness didn’t exist anywhere could anything at all exist? I postulate that it couldn’t.
Barbour is saying in his book I think, in a roundabout way spaced with a lot a maths, that the universe is consciousness and time is thought. Hence nothing moves.
Yet thought moves, or rather information moves through consciousness, hence time.
There is I believe this region, which I call the Psychron Zone, Barbour called it Platonia, where all thoughts meet and link. That ‘place’ is the universe.
To me time is the passing of information through consciousness, which you physicists never include into your equations. Have you read the book, The End of Time, The Next Revolution in Physics, by Julian Barbour. He postulate that time doesn’t exist at all. (You can find him on the web)
I agree with a lot of his arguments, but he too tries to leave consciousness out of his equations and it just doesn’t work. Think about it. Unless you are consciousness nothing exists for you. If none of us were, if consciousness didn’t exist anywhere could anything at all exist? I postulate that it couldn’t.
Barbour is saying in his book I think, in a roundabout way spaced with a lot a maths, that the universe is consciousness and time is thought. Hence nothing moves.
Yet thought moves, or rather information moves through consciousness, hence time.
There is I believe this region, which I call the Psychron Zone, Barbour called it Platonia, where all thoughts meet and link. That ‘place’ is the universe.
totoro
- 42
- 0
LogicalAtheist, you can read the book, elegant universe, because i copy it from that book. it is in page 50 saying about motion through spacetime. after thinking for sometime, i found out that is me that don't understand. I'm started to understand now why we cannot compare the two. I'm really happy that begin with don't understand to understanding.
the happiest thing for us is not the answer, but the process itself. we experience it by ourself. thank you very much LogicalAtheist and now i really really need to rethink my idea. thanks!
the happiest thing for us is not the answer, but the process itself. we experience it by ourself. thank you very much LogicalAtheist and now i really really need to rethink my idea. thanks!
LogicalAtheist
Happy to here you're comment totoro. As for the book, I think I will get it ASAP as I need a good book to read before school starts next month. It's on my amazon.com list
LURCH
Science Advisor
- 2,549
- 119
Originally posted by totoro
LogicalAtheist, you can read the book, elegant universe, because i copy it from that book. it is in page 50 saying about motion through spacetime.
LOL! That's where I got my statement that the speed of time is c. The idea is that every material object has a total volocity of c through spacetime. Any movement in one direction is subtracted from one's progress through other dimensions. Example; if you move North at 10khp, and I check your progress one hour from now, you'll be 10k North of where you were. But, if you go North-East, at the same speed, one hour from now I'll find you only 5k further North. Your 10kph volocity has been split; 5k North and 5k East.
So, taking your total volocity through spacetime as c, I add the sum of your volocities as; 5kph Northward, 5kph Eastward, and "c - 10kph" Forward through Time (entropy-ward?)!
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,097
- 1
Greetings Tom Leigh !
Well, I do not disagree with you Tom Leigh
because anything's possible and I can't
refute such a possibility, it's also an
intresting one.
However, what you have to realize is that
science is only there to deal with the
data we observe. Now if we observe evidence
for the above - it won't be a reasonable
and self-consistent possibility, will it ?
Otherwise, however, it just remains a possibility.
Further more, it is an unnecessary assumption.
Science does NOT assume that everything is
"physical", there is not even a definition
for that word. Science is just about observing
the data we receive - whatever its source and
wether it has a source at all or not.
Live long and prosper.
Well, I do not disagree with you Tom Leigh
because anything's possible and I can't
refute such a possibility, it's also an
intresting one.
However, what you have to realize is that
science is only there to deal with the
data we observe. Now if we observe evidence
for the above - it won't be a reasonable
and self-consistent possibility, will it ?
Otherwise, however, it just remains a possibility.
Further more, it is an unnecessary assumption.
Science does NOT assume that everything is
"physical", there is not even a definition
for that word. Science is just about observing
the data we receive - whatever its source and
wether it has a source at all or not.
Live long and prosper.
sheldon
- 150
- 0
lets go the opposite direction from C, what about absolute Zero, no motion, Can time exist if motion does not? can energy exist in motionless.
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
What about the speed (increase) of time?
I think that same as space expands, also time expands. So, effectively the time between now and the Big Bang was an infinite amount of time.
I think that same as space expands, also time expands. So, effectively the time between now and the Big Bang was an infinite amount of time.
newton1
- 151
- 0
well...
i still dun think the time should have speed
just like what i said before
time is only a dimension or coordinate
only the object in the dimension have speed
absolute zore will not make the time stop
this only show the entropy is zero
nothing will make the time stop
i still dun think the time should have speed
just like what i said before
time is only a dimension or coordinate
only the object in the dimension have speed
absolute zore will not make the time stop
this only show the entropy is zero
nothing will make the time stop
heusdens
- 1,736
- 0
Originally posted by sheldon
lets go the opposite direction from C, what about absolute Zero, no motion, Can time exist if motion does not? can energy exist in motionless.
No matter in whatever form (including energy) can exist without motion/change, which means time has to exist.
If there is no motion, then neither there is matter. We can conceive of this as "pure time" (time without any foreign admixtures).
Similar threads
- · Replies 4 ·
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 1K
High School
Filming a passing road sign: speed vs bumpiness
- · Replies 16 ·
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 2K
High School
Average Speed vs. Velocity: Explained
- · Replies 10 ·
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 4K
- · Replies 1 ·
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 1K
- · Replies 2 ·
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 1K
- · Replies 4 ·
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 2K
- · Replies 22 ·
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 8K
- · Replies 19 ·
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 11K
- · Replies 24 ·
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 3K