What is the Concept of Time Speed?

[gabriel.dac]

Considering that time is relative, then we can measure the speed of time, technically.

If you measure your own time speed, you'll always find the same result. That's why I said that time is relative.

The speed of time unit can be s/s: seconds(observed)/seconds(observer).

or simply t/t if you rather.

1.3 s/s
1.2 s/s
1.1 s/s
1 s/s - If you try to measure your own speed in time, you'll always find this result
0.9 s/s
0.8 s/s
...
0 s/s - The speed of time of light in a vaccum. Light doesn't age, as we already know.

Keep in mind that all these speeds are relative to the clock of the observer.

Does this make any sense? Can you make it better? Comment.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Considering that time is relative, then we can measure the speed of time, technically.

I don't know what you mean by "the speed of time". You can calculate (not measure) how time is flowing in some other frame of reference as compared to your own. But that is purely frame dependent and has no "real" meaning.

If you measure your own time speed, you'll always find the same result. That's why I said that time is relative.

The speed of time unit can be s/s: seconds(observed)/seconds(observer).

or simply t/t if you rather.

1.3 s/s
1.2 s/s
1.1 s/s
1 s/s - If you try to measure your own speed in time, you'll always find this result
0.9 s/s
0.8 s/s
...
0 s/s - The speed of time of light in a vaccum. Light doesn't age, as we already know.

Keep in mind that all these speeds are relative to the clock of the observer.

Does this make any sense? Can you make it better? Comment.

 

[Nugatory]

Does this make any sense? Can you make it better? Comment.

If I understand you correctly, what you're trying to describe is more formally captured by the notions of "proper time" and "coordinate time". If that's what's going on, yes, what you're saying makes sense but could be better said by using the standard terminology for these concepts.

 

[ZapperZ]

Considering that time is relative, then we can measure the speed of time, technically.

If you measure your own time speed, you'll always find the same result. That's why I said that time is relative.

The speed of time unit can be s/s: seconds(observed)/seconds(observer).

or simply t/t if you rather.

1.3 s/s
1.2 s/s
1.1 s/s
1 s/s - If you try to measure your own speed in time, you'll always find this result
0.9 s/s
0.8 s/s
...
0 s/s - The speed of time of light in a vaccum. Light doesn't age, as we already know.

Keep in mind that all these speeds are relative to the clock of the observer.

Does this make any sense? Can you make it better? Comment.

No, it makes no sense, and it has no physical meaning.

s/s = no units. How could this be a speed of anything?

Please note that units of anything "per second" is defined as RATE. The frequency of oscillation has units of Hz, which is the number of oscillation per unit time or per second. "Speed" is defined as the rate of displacement per unit time.

Just because something has a unit that is "/s", it doesn't mean it is a speed!

This thread has been moved to the General Physics forum because this has nothing to do with relativity. It has everything to do with basic, simple physics.

Zz.

 

[gabriel.dac]

Well, I haven't thought much about this idea. It just crossed my mind one day and I decided to share.

And I know that speed is the rate of displacement per unit of time, but people most of the time say, for example, that time passes slower the faster you move. So that gives the idea that time is a speed.

And some people consider time as being the fourth dimension. So maybe you would literally be moving toward the time dimension. But this is just an idea, of course

 

[phinds]

Well, I haven't thought much about this idea. It just crossed my mind one day and I decided to share.

And I know that speed is the rate of displacement per unit of time, but people most of the time say, for example, that time passes slower the faster you move. So that gives the idea that time is a speed.

And some people consider time as being the fourth dimension. So maybe you would literally be moving toward the time dimension. But this is just an idea, of course

You would do better to spend your time reading some actual physics instead of posting suggestions that simply demonstrate that you have not yet done so.

Time does not pass any slower when you are moving than it does when you are standing "still" but it IS seen by OTHERS to be different than what you see it as. You'll understand this if you study a little Special Relativity.

Time IS the "4th dimension" in space-time. "Moving toward the time dimension" is not a meaningful concept.

 

[gabriel.dac]

You would do better to spend your time reading some actual physics instead of posting suggestions that simply demonstrate that you have not yet done so.

Time does not pass any slower when you are moving than it does when you are standing "still" but it IS seen by OTHERS to be different than what you see it as. You'll understand this if you study a little Special Relativity.

Time IS the "4th dimension" in space-time. "Moving toward the time dimension" is not a meaningful concept.

I have studied special relativity. As I said, that was an example. I could have said "Time appears to pass more slowly to an object traveling at a high speed according to an observer standing still". Whatever. The point is that people use the words slower and faster when talking about time.

 

[ZapperZ]

And I know that speed is the rate of displacement per unit of time, but people most of the time say, for example, that time passes slower the faster you move. So that gives the idea that time is a speed.

You can't use what "people most of the time say" to do physics. You need to base on what what PHYSICS actually say and define. You are not free to make your own definitions.

And some people consider time as being the fourth dimension. So maybe you would literally be moving toward the time dimension. But this is just an idea, of course

What does this have to do with your s/s being the speed of time? And before you extrapolate something based on an erroneous understanding, look at an example of the Lorentz transformation equation. You'll notice that the "4th dimension", as you say it, is not just "t", but "vt"! So what is the dimension of that quantity?

BTW, before you claim that "light doesn't age", which implicitly means that one can transform to the photon's rest frame, read this:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511170

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

What you are describing is essentially the gamma factor (Lorentz factor):

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

 

[Myslius]

I think I know what you mean by the speed of time, it's not Lorentz factor, it's Δt / Δt' or Lorentz factor^-1
speed of time is not an acceptable term in special relativity, so you probably will be misunderstood.

By using your description the basic idea in relativity is:
speed of time² + speed in space² = 1

And that's how you should convert it to the usual thinking:
speed of time² + (v/c)² = 1
speed of time² = 1 - v²/c²
speed of time = √(1 - v²/c²)
Δt / Δt' = √(1 - v²/c²)