What is time??

[OnlyMe]

wrong

your biology dictates how long you live

it has nothing to do with " time "

Until it is running out!

 

[AlexG]

To quote John Wheeler,

"Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. And space is what keeps it from happening to me."

 

[OnlyMe]

To quote John Wheeler,

"Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. And space is what keeps it from happening to me."

From http://physics.info/time/
Henri Bergson (1859–1941) :Le temps est ce qui empêche que tout soit donné tout d'un coup. [Time keeps everything from happening all at once.]

Wheeler kinda repurposed the first sentence. I had forgotten the second which when added to the first, I like even better.

 

[hansda]

I don't think that the general intent of the above quote is true.

The recent conclusion of the GP-B experiment confirmed or reconfirmed both the geodetic and frame dragging effects. Mass both distorts space geodetically, which could be viewed as a relatively static effect and dynamically, as demonstrated by frame dragging, which involves the angular momentum of the involved mass relative to space.

Neither of these effects involve relativistic velocities. And taken together they suggest that mass, changes the shape of space both by just being there and as a function of its angular momentum. An added note is that even though frame dragging involves angular momentum, the fact that it has been confirmed to exist, suggests that any relative motion of mass in space, should produce a similar drag on space consistent with the involved motion.

How light or the path of light is affected by any of these changes in the shape of space, becomes a bit more complicated. The velocity of light is constant at least locally, where in this case locally can be defined as from the frame of reference of the involved mass, and we have no evidence that any gravitationally significant mass exists anywhere, with any locally significant relativistic velocity. Light relative to all gravitationally significant bodies, has a velocity of c and the non-relativistic velocity of the involved mass, is of no significance. While frame dragging may add an angular component to already established gravitational lensing, any similar drag on space resulting from linear motion should be insignificant as far as light is concerned.

Whether light or a photon, is absorbed by, reflected by or passes by the involved mass is determined by the initial trajectory of the photon, the composition of the object and the magnitude of its gravitational field and potentially some possible contribution from frame dragging.

A mass having angular momentum is not a static-mass relative to space . Our earth is also not static relative to space .

 

[hansda]

We are well aware of the equation : c = f * l ; where c is the velocity of light , which is constant , f is the frequency , l is the wavelength and * is the multiplication (into) symbol .



This equation can be read in a generalised form as :

c = [frequency] * [distance] .......... (1) .




The time equation ( speed = distance/time ) can be re-written in terms of c as :

c = [distance] / [time] .......... (2) .




Comparing equations (1) and (2) , we can find that time is also related with frequency . This relationship between time and frequency can be expressed mathematically as :


Mfrequency * Tminimum = 1 ; where Mfrequency is the maximum frequency and Tminimum is accordingly smallest time-period or interval of time .





THUS TIME ALSO CAN BE SEEN FROM FREQUENCY POINT OF VIEW .

 

[Dywyddyr]

Frequency of what?
And what does frequency actually mean? Think (if you can) about it.
Wrong.

 

[hansda]

Frequency of what?
And what does frequency actually mean? Think (if you can) about it.
Wrong.

Frequency * time-period = 1 ; where frequency is the number of oscillations or vibrations or revolutions of any mass in one second or in the case of energy-flow : frequency is the number of waves in one second . Time-period is the time taken for the completion of one oscillation/vibration/revolution or one wave .


Thus , the equation " frequency * time-period = 1 " is true for any frequency . This equation is as true as the equation : " speed = distance / time " .

 

[Dywyddyr]

Frequency * time-period = 1 ; where frequency is the number of oscillations or vibrations or revolutions of any mass in one second or in the case of energy-flow : frequency is the number of waves in one second . Time-period is the time taken for the completion of one oscillation/vibration/revolution or one wave .


Thus , the equation " frequency * time-period = 1 " is true for any frequency . This equation is as true as the equation : " speed = distance / time " .

And another fail.
Frequency of WHAT?
And, as you noted in your over-wordy explanation frequency itself involves time, therefore how can it be used as a base unit to derive time?

 

[origin]

Frequency * time-period = 1 ; where frequency is the number of oscillations or vibrations or revolutions of any mass in one second or in the case of energy-flow : frequency is the number of waves in one second . Time-period is the time taken for the completion of one oscillation/vibration/revolution or one wave .


Thus , the equation " frequency * time-period = 1 " is true for any frequency . This equation is as true as the equation : " speed = distance / time " .

Do you really think this means something other than the trivially obvious??

Lets see this in a real example:
Say for a 60 Hz example. There are 60 cycles in a second. .

[60 cycle/ sec.)] * 1/60 sec = 1 cycle

WOW it works! Who would have thought that by multiplying the the frequency by the time (for one cycle) would equal 1 cycle. It is utterly astounding.

It has other applications. Like speed! lets try it...
speed in feet/sec * the time it takes to go 1 foot

60 mph or 88 ft/sec
88 ft/sec * 1/88 sec = 1 holey moley it works!?!?!

This means that time is distance - right?

 

[hansda]

And another fail.
Frequency of WHAT?
And, as you noted in your over-wordy explanation frequency itself involves time, therefore how can it be used as a base unit to derive time?

It is the frequency of the source . For example consider the case of LIGHT . Light originates from its source and travels through the medium of space . Light in its journey through the space may be subjected to the effect of relativity but the source of light remains immune to this effect . Frequency of the source will remain unchanged .

 

[hansda]

And another fail.
Frequency of WHAT?
And, as you noted in your over-wordy explanation frequency itself involves time, therefore how can it be used as a base unit to derive time?

In fact time is being measured through frequency only . Unit of frequency is rpm . RPM of our earth is one revolution per 24*60 minutes . All the clocks/watches are designed with this rpm value of our earth as reference ( or base ) to indicate time .

 

[AlexG]

In fact time is being measured through frequency only . Unit of frequency is rpm . RPM of our earth is one revolution per 24*60 minutes . All the clocks/watches are designed with this rpm value of our earth as reference ( or base ) to indicate time .

Still another fail.

You're trying to use a measurement of time to define time.

 

[wlminex]

. . . I think Wheeler formulated the correct conclusion . . . !

wlminex

 

[origin]

In fact time is being measured through frequency only . Unit of frequency is rpm . RPM of our earth is one revolution per 24*60 minutes . All the clocks/watches are designed with this rpm value of our earth as reference ( or base ) to indicate time .

You should quit while you're behind.

 

[hansda]

Still another fail.

You're trying to use a measurement of time to define time.

See the following site : http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Physics_Study_Guide/Basic_Units for a definition of time .


I quote from this site the definition of time as below :


Time
Time is defined as the duration between two events. In the international system of measurement (S.I.) the second (s) is the basic unit of time and it is defined as the time it takes a cesium (Cs) atom to perform 9 192 631 770 complete oscillations. The Earth revolves around its own axis in 86400 seconds with respect to the Sun; this is known as 1 day, and the 86400th part of one day is known as a second.

 

[AlexG]

This tells us how we've defined a unit of measurement. It doesn't tell us what time is. It just substitutes one word, 'duration' for another word, 'time'.

'Time is defined as the time between two events'.

 

[origin]

We are well aware of the equation : c = f * l ; where c is the velocity of light , which is constant , f is the frequency , l is the wavelength and * is the multiplication (into) symbol .



This equation can be read in a generalised form as :

c = [frequency] * [distance] .......... (1) .

NO, This is not a generalized form at all.

c ONLY equals [frequency] * [wavelength of that PARTICULAR frequency] Therefore the generlized form is c = [frequency] * [wavelength] for a given photon.

The time equation ( speed = distance/time ) can be re-written in terms of c as :

c = [distance] / [time] .......... (2) .

Comparing equations (1) and (2) , we can find that time is also related with frequency .

Not time but a time interval. Big difference.

Frequency does not define time in the slightest. We arbitrarily asign a time interval of 1 second and count the number of cycles over that time period and call that frequency. Since we know the speed of light is c and we know the frequency we can also determine the length of a wave. All this involves a time interval but says nothing about what time is.

 

[hansda]

This tells us how we've defined a unit of measurement. It doesn't tell us what time is. It just substitutes one word, 'duration' for another word, 'time'.

'Time is defined as the time between two events'.

So time can be defined as :

" Number of oscillations of cesium (Cs) atom between two events . "

Or, time can be defined as :

" Number of revolutions of our earth between two events . "

 

[whynot]

what is time??

who can answer, will understand my question without explinations to it

no really, what is time? is time missunderstood? i mean, it's not like, a misterious something, well, it is, but it's also related to gravity in some part of it :shrug:

IDK! Maybe it has to do with a force created by electro magnetic residue decaying.:shrug:

Dont even ask how I came across this idea.:bugeye:

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Time is abstract, it does not exist in physical form, it is not a dimension, it is not an energy/Force like gravity, Nor is it any type of transcendent photon beam of light. nor liquid solid or gas. Its not on a quantum level of appearing and re-appearing nor is it controle dby one main super particle.

Time is Simply a Measuring device we use that is completely abstract, Akin to distance or numbers, There is no "Number one energy" or "5 Mile force" Simply a measuring toold we use to calculate things.

there is The Fabric of space which is the foundation of the Universe which allow Mass and energy to reside in existence, It is the 3d Canvas for creational art it is a clear, lucid canvas.

The Energies and forces keep the cycles of the Galaxies in check so the universe is like a huge clockwork self sustaining system which can reproduce and give birth to future generations of Entitys and lifeforms. From the animals on the planet to the black holes and stars they all have cycles of birth and death.

If Time exists then somebody will be able to present me with some "Time" for observational study. Time itself has no physical role in any of the working parts it is just something we use to calculate cycle rotations.

peace.

That is freaky ! 5 mile force and the 3rd canvas . Your possessed Chi . You might consider Me, being a Five month force splashed on the canvas on the 3rd day. Go Go Gofers. Like Water ? Who said that ?