How fast is time

[Welshidiot]

Not really. You can subdivide distance, but you can't answer how long "Distance" is.

Well tell me what distance you want to know and how tell you how much it is.
Example 1 meter = the distance light travels in 1/299792458 of a second, it used to be the size of a religiously kept metal rod in specific circumstance. the act of measuring is in fact a comparison, when you say x is y in lenght what you are basicaly doing is a comparisson (it is a process that hasn't quite changed since antiquity).

Oh cool! Well since you've answered Hytegia perhaps you can help me out with a few problems I've been having?

1: How high is up?

2: How long is a piece of string?

3: How much is too much?

4: Who put the ram in the rama-lama-ding-dong?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Well tell me what distance you want to know and how tell you how much it is.
Example 1 meter = the distance light travels in 1/299792458 of a second, it used to be the size of a religiously kept metal rod in specific circumstance. the act of measuring is in fact a comparison, when you say x is y in lenght what you are basicaly doing is a comparisson (it is a process that hasn't quite changed since antiquity).

Oh cool! Well since you've answered Hytegia perhaps you can help me out with a few problems I've been having?

1: How high is up?

2: How long is a piece of string?

3: How much is too much?

4: Who put the ram in the rama-lama-ding-dong?

That's the point.
It's not like asking for how you can divide distance - it's asking how long "Distance" is. The initial question is asking something that is a completely relative-to-measure and illogical question.

It's like asking someone to bring you a bucket of Red.
No, not something that is red - the literal Color Red.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I may have miss interpreted what you meant.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Not really. You can subdivide distance, but you can't answer how long "Distance" is.

Well tell me what distance you want to know and how tell you how much it is.
Example 1 meter = the distance light travels in 1/299792458 of a second, it used to be the size of a religiously kept metal rod in specific circumstance. the act of measuring is in fact a comparison, when you say x is y in lenght what you are basicaly doing is a comparisson (it is a process that hasn't quite changed since antiquity).

You're defining a distance in one unit by resorting to a distance in another unit. In this specific case, that's circular reasoning, considering the question is how long distance is.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You're defining a distance in one unit by resorting to a distance in another unit. In this specific case, that's circular reasoning, considering the question is how long distance is.

Metriology is everything but circular. The example of the definition how long is a meter is a specific relation between 2 distinct types of measurments trough a fundamental property of physics, the definition of how much is a second does not turn back into the lenght of a meter but rather to another fundamental property of physics.

The problem of answering the question "how long is distance" and in the context that I haven't realised, is that the "distance" was genericaly used without specifying what distance that is, it was not an inability to be able to tell how much of a fundametal characteristic of what we call a spacial lenght there is in a specific distance. If we assume the plank scale to be an accurate representation of the physical nature of the universe we can even tell how much space there really is without even needing scale criterias.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Can we just say, "impossible to answer without an external frame of reference" and /thread?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

You're defining a distance in one unit by resorting to a distance in another unit. In this specific case, that's circular reasoning, considering the question is how long distance is.

Metriology is everything but circular. The example of the definition how long is a meter is a specific relation between 2 distinct types of measurments trough a fundamental property of physics, the definition of how much is a second does not turn back into the lenght of a meter but rather to another fundamental property of physics.

The problem of answering the question "how long is distance" and in the context that I haven't realised, is that the "distance" was genericaly used without specifying what distance that is, it was not an inability to be able to tell how much of a fundametal characteristic of what we call a spacial lenght there is in a specific distance. If we assume the plank scale to be an accurate representation of the physical nature of the universe we can even tell how much space there really is without even needing scale criterias.

I see what you mean, the difference between this question regarding time vs distance.

 

[>< V ><]

The title seems self-explenatory. Does time go at the speed of light?

Most people here have the intellect of an average atheist, so let me give you the correct answer.


Time dilation from special relativity gives the 5th equation down.

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

If you have zero velocity, then time flows the fastest for you. If you travel at the speed of light, then there is no flow of time. Inbetween these extremes is a continuum of a changing flow of time.

Since relativity forbids Newton's idea of an absolute frame of reference, there is no place in the universe where you have zero velocity, no place in the universe where you experience the maximum flow of time.

Since relativity also forbids matter to travel at the speed of light, there is no place in the universe where you will experience no flow of time.

Why is it that when you travel 0.999999c and turn on your headlights that you see your headlights travel the speed of light? Because the flow of time for you is almost stopped. This changing flow of time happens precisely in a manner so that the speed of light is always constant.

General relativity gives a different perspective of an answer.

In Newtonian physics, the infinitesimal displacement vector is given by,

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 +dx^2

normal Euclidean geometry.

But in general relativity, the infinitesimal displacement vector is given by,

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 +dx^2 -(c*dt)^2

non-Euclidean geometry, because of the minus sign.

In Newtonian physics, one can write a displacement vector with no reference to time, but this is not possible in general relativity, which is why it is called spacetime.

If you travel the speed of light, then

dx^2 + dy^2 +dx^2 = (c*dt)^2

and your displacement vector is zero, the null vector.

In other words, light travels.....no where.

It travels no where, because there is no flow of time. If you could travel faster than light, then time travels backwards.


Brought to you by a non-atheist republican.....enjoy

XVX

 

[australopithecus]

Insulting people in your opening post? This may be the quickest warning ever: drop the attitude and I suggest read the rules too.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Well that was a fascinating and tedious way to not actually answer the question. Which is, of course, predicable, as the question is actually nonsensical.

But kudos on the bravado.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Most people here have the intellect of an average atheist, so let me give you the correct answer.

Are you impling something?
How ironic

Time dilation from special relativity gives the 5th equation down.

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

If you have zero velocity, then time flows the fastest for you. If you travel at the speed of light, then there is no flow of time. Inbetween these extremes is a continuum of a changing flow of time.

:facepalm: Aparently you can't read the question:

How fast is time. (...) Does time go at the speed of light?

Not being able to read is not a good start for a self professed smartass.
Anyways let's continue.

Since relativity forbids Newton's idea of an absolute frame of reference, there is no place in the universe where you have zero velocity, no place in the universe where you experience the maximum flow of time.
Since relativity also forbids matter to travel at the speed of light, there is no place in the universe where you will experience no flow of time.

It says no such things. On the contrary I can also say that there is at least one frame of reference where a certain object is at rest.

Why is it that when you travel 0.999999c and turn on your headlights that you see your headlights travel the speed of light? Because the flow of time for you is almost stopped. This changing flow of time happens precisely in a manner so that the speed of light is always constant.

No that happens because references frames are relative.
Lets imagine that in the there is a reference frame A and a refrence frame B going at 0.9c relative to reference frame A.
From reference frame A prespective an object on refrence frame B is experiencing a "slower time" (watchout for abuses of language), but from the reference frame B prespective an object on reference frame A is the one experiencing a "slower time", from B prespective physics goes about its course as usual.
So which of the reference frames does time "flow" faster or slower?
The right answer is, for you time allways "flows" the same from your prespective no matter in which reference frame you are, this is not the case however for other objects in reference frames difrent from your own.

Even by the equation you presented:

General relativity gives a different perspective of an answer.

In Newtonian physics, the infinitesimal displacement vector is given by,

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 +dx^2

normal Euclidean geometry.

But in general relativity, the infinitesimal displacement vector is given by,

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 +dx^2 -(c*dt)^2

non-Euclidean geometry, because of the minus sign.

In Newtonian physics, one can write a displacement vector with no reference to time, but this is not possible in general relativity, which is why it is called spacetime.

If you travel the speed of light, then

dx^2 + dy^2 +dx^2 = (c*dt)^2

and your displacement vector is zero, the null vector.

In other words, light travels.....no where.

It travels no where, because there is no flow of time. If you could travel faster than light, then time travels backwards.

Doesn't that mean time is comparable by the means of the constant C to space?
Ok so back to the original question:

Does time go at the speed of light?

So remember you can replace time wth space, let's refrase the question.
Does space go at the speed of light squared (scale factor already included) ?

I'm curious to know your non-atheistic Republican answer to that.

 

[>< V ><]

Insulting people in your opening post? This may be the quickest warning ever: drop the attitude and I suggest read the rules too.

My presentation is irrelevant to the logic I put forth. I thought this was the League of Reason?

Can we just say, "impossible to answer without an external frame of reference" and /thread?

External frame of reference? Outside the universe? Isn't this where God lives?

It's not impossible to answer, as a matter of fact, we've had that answer for decades, you just didn't know it.

Well that was a fascinating and tedious way to not actually answer the question. Which is, of course, predicable, as the question is actually nonsensical.

But kudos on the bravado.

I did answer the question, but apparently you didn't use "reason" to understand the answer. So I'll treat you in a simpler fashion. The answer to Leci's question is "no". Time does not flow at the speed of light, because the speed of light is constant, whereas the flow of time is variable. According to you, as a global moderator for the League of Reason, you call such a question "nonsensical", when the simplest piece of reasoning should allow you to conclude that a static constant is not a dynamic variable.

The flow of time is called the "proper time".

It's experimental fact that clocks on jets tick slower.

It's experimental fact that muons from the upper atmosphere hit the Earth's surface because of time dilation.

It is theoretical and experimental fact that time flows at different rates.

Does time go at the speed of light?

Not being able to read is not a good start for a self professed smartass.
Anyways let's continue.

Since your reasoning is insufficient to draw a conclusion from my statements, then let me be blunt. The answer is "no".

It says no such things. On the contrary I can also say that there is at least one frame of reference where a certain object is at rest.

Mister 1609 posts in the League of Reason, you clearly do not understand the difference between Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity. You "think" you have zero velocity sitting in your chair, but compared to what? You are using the reference frame of the Earth. But the Earth has a velocity around the Sun. The Sun has a velocity around the galactic center. And the Milky Way galaxy has a velocity around the other galaxies in the universe. You say something can be at rest, but in doing so, you have chosen some reference frame to say the object is at rest in. As you sit in your chair, you are not at rest, but moving through the universe.

One of the monumental breakthroughs from Einstein was proving that there is no absolute reference frame. A frame that is absolutely at rest. A frame in which you could say "Yes indeed, that object is at rest". As I said, sitting in your chair you are indeed, NOT at rest. With all your talk, you don't even understand the fundamental difference between Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity.

No that happens because references frames are relative.
Lets imagine that in the there is a reference frame A and a refrence frame B going at 0.9c relative to reference frame A.
From reference frame A prespective an object on refrence frame B is experiencing a "slower time" (watchout for abuses of language), but from the reference frame B prespective an object on reference frame A is the one experiencing a "slower time", from B prespective physics goes about its course as usual.
So which of the reference frames does time "flow" faster or slower?
The right answer is, for you time allways "flows" the same from your prespective no matter in which reference frame you are, this is not the case however for other objects in reference frames difrent from your own.

As I said, the flow of time is called the "proper time". When you look at someone in a difference reference frame, you are looking at what's called "coordinate time". And as I stated above, time dilation is a theoretical and experimental fact. You will age slower, live longer the faster your velocity. A thought experiment for this is called the Twin Paradox.

So remember you can replace time wth space, let's refrase the question.
Does space go at the speed of light squared (scale factor already included) ?

I'm curious to know your non-atheistic Republican answer to that.

You can replace time with space? That's what your flawed reasoning assumes. There is no "flow of space", but there is a "flow of time". This difference prevents them from being interchangable.

If you want to debate physics with me, you will lose. Just like I can tell a person who doesn't know how to play guitar well, I can already tell by your statements that you do not know physics well.

BTW, I watch Fox News everyday.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Mister 1609 posts in the League of Reason, you clearly do not understand the difference between Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity. You "think" you have zero velocity sitting in your chair, but compared to what?

To my own frame of reference at the time of measurement.

You are using the reference frame of the Earth.

Erh.. no! But for sake of argument they are very close and let's just say that it is.

But the Earth has a velocity around the Sun.

In what frame of reference?

The Sun has a velocity around the galactic center.

In what frame of reference?

And the Milky Way galaxy has a velocity around the other galaxies in the universe.

In what frame of reference?

You are not very good at this are you?

You say something can be at rest, but in doing so, you have chosen some reference frame to say the object is at rest in. As you sit in your chair, you are not at rest, but moving through the universe.

Wait isn't this an objection that implies that there is an absolute frame of reference?
And when you say:

One of the monumental breakthroughs from Einstein was proving that there is no absolute reference frame.

You are kind of contradicting yourself. And given that the latter is not yours but actual physics, aren't you kind of wrong?
Do you even understand why I had to put "at the time of measurement" condition?

As I said, the flow of time is called the "proper time".

I'm curious to know how you measure proper time.

And as I stated above, time dilation is a theoretical and experimental fact. You will age slower, live longer the faster your velocity. A thought experiment for this is called the Twin Paradox.

The taught experiment? I don't think you quite grasp the concept of experimental observation.
But yes the fact that clocks run slower in orbit is an observable fact, and that experiment is continuously being performed by satellites in orbit. One of such examples is the GPS constellation. And? Nobody is contesting relativity, I am just contesting your version of it and how it relates to the question.

So remember you can replace time with space, let's rephrase the question.
Does space go at the speed of light squared (scale factor already included) ?
I'm curious to know your non-atheistic Republican answer to that.

You can replace time with space?

YES!!!!!!!!!! That is what your equations say, that is what space time means!

There is no "flow of space", but there is a "flow of time". This difference prevents them from being interchangable.

Bullshit! The reason why they are not interchangeable in your mind is because the question sounds good when you use one but doesn't sound anything sensible when you use the other.
And the reason why it is nonsense is because objects travel through space, space doesn't travel through space, the same way time does not flow over time, objects do.

BTW, I watch Fox News everyday.

I don't know why you needed to mention this Christian stereotype. I have a strange feeling you are a poe.

 

[australopithecus]

My presentation is irrelevant to the logic I put forth. I thought this was the League of Reason?

You're correct, this is the league of reason. Not the league of talking down to people and being insulting. Continue and your stay here will be brief.

 

[Prolescum]

:lol:

Another erect member who thinks this is actually a league of pseudo-intellectuals and not a general discussion forum. Why does no one bother to RTFM? The link's at the top of every page...

Of course, the reason is obvious, but it's funny to watching the train plummet in slo-mo. Carry on!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

:lol:

Another erect member who thinks this is actually a league of pseudo-intellectuals and not a general discussion forum. Why does no one bother to RTFM? The link's at the top of every page...

Of course, the reason is obvious, but it's funny to watching the train plummet in slo-mo. Carry on!

It would be happening at a regular speed if experienced on the train.

:lol:

 

[Prolescum]

It would be happening at a regular speed if experienced on the train.

:lol:

Either or, the destination is predictable; riding the proverbial troll train means following a course already built by pioneers. Chugging along on tracks laid by others is to be forever limited by it.

That's why I traverse by bicycle.

 

[>< V ><]

You're correct, this is the league of reason. Not the league of talking down to people and being insulting. Continue and your stay here will be brief.

So you will deny scientific information, solely because of the way I present it? Because my presentation may evoke emotions in the weak minded?

Master_Ghost_Knight has over 1600 posts here. How many people has he corrupted with false information? How much damage has he done against the cause of educating people with correct science?

Didn't you have Carl Sagan in your signature? Have you ever watched Cosmos? Let's take a quick look at a segment from Cosmos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPoGVP-wZv8&feature=player_embedded

At 2:40, "The most bizarre aspect of traveling near the speed of light, is that time slows down. All clocks, mechanical and biological, tick more slowly near the speed of light. But stationary clocks tick at their usual rate. If we travel close to light speed, we age more slowly then those we left behind." -Carl Sagan

What do you prioritize more australopithecus? Correct science or how it's presented? Do you really expect someone like myself that has dedicated their life to physics, to advancing physical knowledge, being a true promoter of correct science, to treat someone like Master_Ghost_Knight as an intellectual equal?

Mister 1609 posts in the League of Reason, you clearly do not understand the difference between Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity. You "think" you have zero velocity sitting in your chair, but compared to what?

To my own frame of reference at the time of measurement.

You are using the reference frame of the Earth.

Erh.. no! But for sake of argument they are very close and let's just say that it is.

But the Earth has a velocity around the Sun.

In what frame of reference?

The Sun has a velocity around the galactic center.

In what frame of reference?

And the Milky Way galaxy has a velocity around the other galaxies in the universe.

In what frame of reference?

You are not very good at this are you?

You say something can be at rest, but in doing so, you have chosen some reference frame to say the object is at rest in. As you sit in your chair, you are not at rest, but moving through the universe.

Wait isn't this an objection that implies that there is an absolute frame of reference?
And when you say:

One of the monumental breakthroughs from Einstein was proving that there is no absolute reference frame.

You are kind of contradicting yourself. And given that the latter is not yours but actual physics, aren't you kind of wrong?
Do you even understand why I had to put "at the time of measurement" condition?

Newton's second law, when mass is constant, is F = m*a. Force equals mass times acceleration. If an object has no acceleration, then it has no net force.

Since velocity is a vector, constant motion means, constant motion in a straight line. But constant circular motion requires the velocity vector to change directions and since acceleration is defined as a change in velocity over a change in time, even though the "speed" may be constant, if the velocity vector changes direction, then there must be an acceleration. This acceleration is called centripetal acceleration and can be equated to (tangential velocity squared)/(radius of motion).

As you sit in your chair, in the simplest of pictures, your net force is zero, you have no acceleration and you are at rest. This is what freshmens are taught. But this is NOT the whole picture of physics. This is the beginnings of understanding something more complicated, because obviously, as you sit in your chair, you orbit the Sun. You orbit the galactic center. You orbit other galaxies. And orbiting another object demands a change in your velocity vector, demands a centripetal acceleration, which demands a net force. A net force due to gravity.

Since the gravitational force is only zero at infinity and the universe is not infinitely large, means all objects in the universe are in orbital motion due to a net force from gravity. Thus, all objects in the universe have, at least, a tangential velocity. And if all objects have a velocity, then no object is at rest.

Notice that no where do I need to refer to a frame of reference.

What Newton wanted to believe (but himself admited was not well established) was that there was a center to the universe, of which all objects orbited. And this "center of the universe" was the absolute reference frame of which all objects could be measured against.

But in Einstein's four dimensional universe, there is no center. With the elimination of the center of the universe, was also eliminated Newton's only hope of an absolute frame of reference.

I'm curious to know how you measure proper time.

You mean, you don't know? You don't know introductory special relativity, while you sit here and make comments challenging special relativity?


How do you answer this contradiction you have put forth?

The right answer is, for you time allways "flows" the same from your prespective no matter in which reference frame you are

But yes the fact that clocks run slower in orbit is an observable fact, and that experiment is continuously being performed by satellites in orbit.

So on one hand, time always flows the same, yet, on the other hand, if I sit in a satellite, time runs slower. Which is it?

You can replace time with space?

YES!!!!!!!!!! That is what your equations say, that is what space time means!

That is not what I said. This is what I said.

In Newtonian physics, one can write a displacement vector with no reference to time, but this is not possible in general relativity, which is why it is called spacetime.

The reason it's called spacetime is because displacement vectors require a time component in relativity. This is not the case in Newtonian mechanics. Spacetime does NOT mean, time and space are interchangable variables, it means, one cannot write a displacement vector, something normally thought of as only requiring spatial components, without a time component. I gave a specific reason on why time and space cannot be interchanged, you give no reason. It is simply your assumption.

Velocity is defined as the displacement vector divided by the change in time, v = d/t. According to you, space and time are interchangable and thus velocity can also equal v = t/d, which is obviously wrong. Clearly, unit analysis alone should dictate that.

Now I've given you two reasons.

:lol:

Another erect member who thinks this is actually a league of pseudo-intellectuals and not a general discussion forum. Why does no one bother to RTFM? The link's at the top of every page...

Of course, the reason is obvious, but it's funny to watching the train plummet in slo-mo. Carry on!

General discussion forum? Clearly, this is the League of New Age Atheists that are trying to re-label themselves as "reasoned", "rationalists", because apparently, one is only reasoned or rational if they are an atheist.

Talk about a false dichotomy.

BTW, I voted for George W Bush.....twice.

XVX

 

[Memeticemetic]

Mod Note:

You will keep a civil tongue, or you will be summarily, and permanently, banned. I've no patience for arrogance such as yours today.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

:lol:

Another erect member who thinks this is actually a league of pseudo-intellectuals and not a general discussion forum. Why does no one bother to RTFM? The link's at the top of every page...

Of course, the reason is obvious, but it's funny to watching the train plummet in slo-mo. Carry on!

General discussion forum? Clearly, this is the League of New Age Atheists that are trying to re-label themselves as "reasoned", "rationalists", because apparently, one is only reasoned or rational if they are an atheist.

Talk about a false dichotomy.

BTW, I voted for George W Bush.....twice.

XVX

1) I'm not an atheist. I have more posts than all but 8 people on this forum.
I am reasonable. I am rational.
I'm not banned because I'm not an idiotic fucktwit that parades around pretending to be better than everyone else by posting half-reasoned scientific questions by today's knowledge standards.

2) You're trolling because your political stance was not even a part of this topic, but you announced that you hold a particularly unpopular opinion on here which was irrelevant to anything said.

3) Idiots vote for Idiots, especially twice in a row - jus' sayin'.