It is true ; it is difficult to choose such a FoR as Absolute-Static . But let us assume , such a FoR exists somewhere for the sake of understanding TIME .
What is time??
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
It is true ; it is difficult to choose such a FoR as Absolute-Static . But let us assume , such a FoR exists somewhere for the sake of understanding TIME .
To the extent that "time is that which is measured by clocks", I'm not sure arbitrarily establishing an absolute-static FoR gains you much. Even if you could build your clocks to account for their so-called 'absolute' motion such that we all agree on a single universal tick-tock, the local experience would still obviously experience time dilation because that universal tick-tock would be moving faster or slower depending upon our movement. Either your local clock time-flow is the same everywhere, OR your universal time is the same everywhere, but not both.handsa said:
In other words, the twin paradox does not vanish simply because handsa declares that his laboratory is the center of the universe.
With relative to this Absolute-Static , the event of relativity will still happen ; space will still dilate . In that case , movement of space will become absolute-motion with respect to the Absolute-Static . Thus space is also a moving object like mass and energy but TIME is not a moving object .
To the extent that "time is that which is measured by clocks", I'm not sure arbitrarily establishing an absolute-static FoR gains you much. Even if you could build your clocks to account for their so-called 'absolute' motion such that we all agree on a single universal tick-tock, the local experience would still obviously experience time dilation because that universal tick-tock would be moving faster or slower depending upon our movement. Either your local clock time-flow is the same everywhere, OR your universal time is the same everywhere, but not both.
In other words, the twin paradox does not vanish simply because handsa declares that his laboratory is the center of the universe.
The speed of LIGHT is same (constant ) everywhere , whether space dilates or not . So TIME will vary accordingly . TIME will follow SPACE . Time is also dependant upon Light . Where light can not pass(move) ; time also can not pass(move) .
Light's speed, measured by distance/time, is only constant if your local time-flow is constant, which you have now altered with a Universal Tick-Tock. No offense Handsa but your ideas are a little bit too vague (new-agey?) for me to appreciate them.handsa said:
In reality (in the present) only mass , energy , space , light and observer exists . TIME ( or interval of TIME ) we calculate from these existences .
If time does not exist, then the past, any past moment should be no different from the present.
Why then can't we manipulate the past? Why can't I change an action I did 5 minutes in the past? If there is no time, I should be able to.
In reality, TIME also exists in the present in the form of 'present' . 'Present' is also part of time . 'Present' is very small interval of infinite TIME . In this small interval of time ('present') all of mass , energy and space of the universe is present . TIME moves all of mass , energy and space of the universe from the present to the future in the proper logical sequence .
Last edited:
Speed of Light with relative to the Absolute-Static is constant . Speed of Light with relative to local space( in absolute-rest ) is constant . Speed of Light with relative to the observer is constant . Only speed of Light with relative to local space ( in absolute-motion ) is changing ; in that case the local moving space will also affect the speed of the observer accordingly , so that speed of Light with relative to the observer remains constant . So, where is the need that local time-flow should change to keep the speed of light constant ( with relative to local moving space ) ?
Last edited:
No, you cannot have it both ways. "Speed" is measured by distance / time. If we were to agree on a preferred frame of reference as you suggested, and calculate all measurements of time against that frame, then the local rate of flow of time would not be constant; therefore the measured speed of light would also be altered by a change in our absolute motion.hansda said:
Local clock-time will change because of local space in absolute-motion . Local 'clock-time change' , does not mean 'local time-flow' is changing .
Wait, what?? If we aren't using our Universal Tick-Tock clocks in our measurements then when exactly shall we use them? What is the point?
You said time dilation "goes away" if we all agree on a preferred frame from which to measure things, but really by doing so time dilation is changed to be a local phenomenon rather than a remote one.
I cannot see any way that an absolute at rest frame of reference is possible.
I cannot even see a way to construct a locally "at rest" frame of reference by averaging all potential frames of reference, as it would seem, to me, that unresolvable conflicts would arise between any imagined averaged frame of reference and one or more of the "possible" inertial and non-inertial frames of reference involved.
As I attempted to present earlier, the closest thing we can currently observe, to an at rest frame would be the CMB and in that we can only know what it looks like from where we "are". If we were to consider the CMB, as we measure it, as representing an at rest frame of reference, we have no way of imposing it on portions of the universe outside of our own frame of reference.
In a way, any attempt to define an at rest frame of reference from our own perspective, elevates "our" frame of reference to a preferred or special status.
Setting aside the specifics of general relativity and its treatment of space and time, the GP-B experiment does demonstrate that space or what we experience as space is at least locally dynamic. There is no reason to expect that the local dynamics of space is special. (i.e. frame dragging occurs and is centered around the Sun, Earth, galaxies and even galactic clusters, each an independent frame of reference involving both mass and space in a unique inertial relationship.) Given that our current understanding is that inertial and non-inertial frames of reference involving objects (matter) must be considered equally valid and that as per the results of the GP-B experiment space follows similar rules relative to a frame of reference. There is nothing conceivable which is kinetically static, at rest or absolutely stationary.
Relativity does appear to be a fundamental aspect to the universe in which we exist, which includes both the matter and space, as we understand them.
Unless at some time we discover this to be contrary to experience, there is no preferred frame of reference. No "Absolute-Static" frame of reference. All frames of reference are relative.
I cannot even see a way to construct a locally "at rest" frame of reference by averaging all potential frames of reference, as it would seem, to me, that unresolvable conflicts would arise between any imagined averaged frame of reference and one or more of the "possible" inertial and non-inertial frames of reference involved.
As I attempted to present earlier, the closest thing we can currently observe, to an at rest frame would be the CMB and in that we can only know what it looks like from where we "are". If we were to consider the CMB, as we measure it, as representing an at rest frame of reference, we have no way of imposing it on portions of the universe outside of our own frame of reference.
In a way, any attempt to define an at rest frame of reference from our own perspective, elevates "our" frame of reference to a preferred or special status.
Setting aside the specifics of general relativity and its treatment of space and time, the GP-B experiment does demonstrate that space or what we experience as space is at least locally dynamic. There is no reason to expect that the local dynamics of space is special. (i.e. frame dragging occurs and is centered around the Sun, Earth, galaxies and even galactic clusters, each an independent frame of reference involving both mass and space in a unique inertial relationship.) Given that our current understanding is that inertial and non-inertial frames of reference involving objects (matter) must be considered equally valid and that as per the results of the GP-B experiment space follows similar rules relative to a frame of reference. There is nothing conceivable which is kinetically static, at rest or absolutely stationary.
Relativity does appear to be a fundamental aspect to the universe in which we exist, which includes both the matter and space, as we understand them.
Unless at some time we discover this to be contrary to experience, there is no preferred frame of reference. No "Absolute-Static" frame of reference. All frames of reference are relative.
Relative reference and motion allows one to violate the conservation of energy. Relative reference allows perpetual motions theories for the universe.
Let me give an example, I have given before. We start with three equal space ships. When the crews are asleep, we accelerate two of the ships to near C. We then wake everyone and tell them to use their relative reference to explain motion and then we compare their energy balance, to the known energy balance.
The two ships in motion will see one moving (stationary) and the other stationary (moving). Each of these two will come up with an energy balance of 1/2 the actual amount of energy added. The stationary will see two moving and will get the energy balance correct. If we voted and the 2 to 1 consensus, would be able to make things up since the real energy balance would not be important.
In the next experiment, only oneship will be given motion and the other two will remain stationary. In this case, the one moving seeing two ships in relative motion. He just doubled the energy balance allowing him to postulate perpetual motion theory. The two stationary get the energy balance right. The consensus here would so better with respect to reality, but totally by coincidence and not smarts.
Even if we can't find the zero reference, relative reference is able to lead to worse problems. Not being perfect zero reference will not alter the energy balance as much a relative on its worse day.
Let me give an example, I have given before. We start with three equal space ships. When the crews are asleep, we accelerate two of the ships to near C. We then wake everyone and tell them to use their relative reference to explain motion and then we compare their energy balance, to the known energy balance.
The two ships in motion will see one moving (stationary) and the other stationary (moving). Each of these two will come up with an energy balance of 1/2 the actual amount of energy added. The stationary will see two moving and will get the energy balance correct. If we voted and the 2 to 1 consensus, would be able to make things up since the real energy balance would not be important.
In the next experiment, only oneship will be given motion and the other two will remain stationary. In this case, the one moving seeing two ships in relative motion. He just doubled the energy balance allowing him to postulate perpetual motion theory. The two stationary get the energy balance right. The consensus here would so better with respect to reality, but totally by coincidence and not smarts.
Even if we can't find the zero reference, relative reference is able to lead to worse problems. Not being perfect zero reference will not alter the energy balance as much a relative on its worse day.
Just ran across this while "surfing" vixra.org. I have not read it yet but, at least from the title, it shows this discussion extends far beyond this discussion group.
Submitted April 2, 2011
Time... is What Allows Things to Happen in Sequence But Keeps Everything from Happening at Once http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1104.0063v1.pdf
Submitted April 2, 2011
Time... is What Allows Things to Happen in Sequence But Keeps Everything from Happening at Once http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1104.0063v1.pdf
Let us assume at some location of space , time is dilating . Let us assume 'time-dilation' means flow of time at that location is faster or slower than flow of time at other locations of space. We know time flows from present to future . So , if time is dilating ; at that location future will arrive faster or slower . We also know that TIME carries mass and energy from present to future . So , where time is dilating ; some mass and energy of the 'present' will be carried over to 'future' earlier or later . So , there is a chance that some mass and energy of 'present' will be lost in the 'past' or 'future' . So , isn't this phenomenon contradicting the principle of mass-energy-conservation of our universe ? Should advanced concept contradict the basic concepts ???
Sorry, but *every* bit of that is wrong.
First off, "dilation" is not a faster/slower thing at all - dilation *always* produces a slowing of relative time.
And there's absolutely nothing to support your silly idea that ANY mass or energy could be "lost" by moving into that frame of reference. That's just nonsense.