What is time??

For example , consider two identical clocks . One clock is kept on the earth and the other clock is kept in the moon . These two clocks will show different time , because they are in different force-field or gravity .
And your point is...?
Gravity is an "acceleration". :rolleyes:

Me said:
To accelerate the clock thrust is applied.
 
So, time-dilation basically is change of force or force-field to slow down a clock at significant speed .



Time-dilation is not dilation of time .



As time , itself does not dilate ; time is uniform .
 
Einstein once wrote something like the following about time, which I think is very succinct and pretty much describes it.
When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.

It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events.

In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.

There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time.​
he above is not a quote: It is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.

It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered primitive terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.

Note that an axiomatic system requires undefined primitive terms to avoid various problems associated with circular definitions.

It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.

how bout this "before divide by after" = the present. Goal setting philosophy. Trains on tracks so to speak.


edit : the wave is increased by resonance of wave combination. There has to be a code that dictates dampening . Numeric
 
No.


Wrong.


Also wrong.

Please go back and read the replies you have been given.


Consider two identical clocks . One of the clock is kept in the Earth . The other clock is kept in the Moon .




Gravities ( or force-fields ) of the Earth and the Moon are different . So timings of these two clocks will be different .




Does it mean , that the flow of time ; at the Earth and the Moon are different ?
 
Consider two identical clocks . One of the clock is kept in the Earth . The other clock is kept in the Moon .




Gravities ( or force-fields ) of the Earth and the Moon are different . So timings of these two clocks will be different .




Does it mean , that the flow of time ; at the Earth and the Moon are different ?


So, " TIME IS UNIFORM. " .
 
To me, it always made more sense to treat time as a potential; time potential. This allows others other forms of potential, such as gravity, to alter time; potential altering potential. Rather than just say time slowed or speeded up, like time was in motion like a velocity, the time potential increasing or decreasing will cause an adjustment to all the forces of nature in any given reference, via potential interactons.

If you look at light, its energy it can be expressed as wavelength and frequency. These two variables imply a connection to distance and time. Energy contains time (frequency) that is a direct function of its stored energy capactance. This observation corresponds easier by using the concept of potential, than velocity, since all photons at any frequency (time) have the same velocity, but can exhibit different potential energy. If we add another potential, such as gravity, we can tweak all time potentials at the same time; spectrum red shift.

I do recognize traditions are well engrained and hard to break. But I also recognize time potential is a much more compact system for doing all the same things.
 
Consider two identical clocks . One of the clock is kept in the Earth . The other clock is kept in the Moon .




Gravities ( or force-fields ) of the Earth and the Moon are different . So timings of these two clocks will be different .




Does it mean , that the flow of time ; at the Earth and the Moon are different ?

That is what it means. The different flow of time relative to the strength of a gravitational field is a measurable fact.
 
That is what it means. The different flow of time relative to the strength of a gravitational field is a measurable fact.


This is not exactly , " different flow of time " ; but it is " different flow of clocks " relative to the strength of a gravitational field , which is a measurable fact .
 
So time is like water that flows? Or is it like unicorn that flies, with gravity able to adjsst the speed of flight? If time was only a concept and not a tangible variable with substance or potentoa, nothing but a concept is changing. The only thing that changes would be in the imagination but not in reality.

This imaginary thing, that is only in the head, or t=time is a mental construct, because it is part of so many equations, implies all these equations are partly imaginary and in the head. This imaginary layer may account for the concept of chaos, since the imagination is subject to chaotic change.

Nobody ever explains the rules for tagging along an imaginary variable that has no substance or potential, to all the equations of reality, and why we can call that reality. It would be like adding the imaginary mental variable flying unicorns, which is also imaginary and lacks subjstance or potential. As long was we tag this concept along, there is a degree of pretend. Maybe we need this degree of pretend to make up for less than rational premises.

I am not trying to be a butt head, but once I realized if you tag an imaginary variable without substance or potential to equations, you can't define reality, I learned to change. I made it a potential so now it is not in my head but is part of reality so there is no imagination involved. It was a question of defining this potential. The best place is within energy since the potential of any quanta is connected to its frequency. This frequency contains the potential because it takes a energy to measure time (clock) but distance (wavelenght) can be measured with a passive device; meter stick. So the potential witin energy is conneced to time potential.
 
Last edited:
So time is like water that flows? Or is it like unicorn that flies, with gravity able to adjsst the speed of flight? If time was only a concept and not a tangible variable with substance or potentoa, nothing but a concept is changing. The only thing that changes would be in the imagination but not in reality.

This imaginary thing, that is only in the head, or t=time is a mental construct, because it is part of so many equations, implies all these equations are partly imaginary and in the head. This imaginary layer may account for the concept of chaos, since the imagination is subject to chaotic change.

Nobody ever explains the rules for tagging along an imaginary variable that has no substance or potential, to all the equations of reality, and why we can call that reality. It would be like adding the imaginary mental variable flying unicorns, which is also imaginary and lacks subjstance or potential. As long was we tag this concept along, there is a degree of pretend. Maybe we need this degree of pretend to make up for less than rational premises.

I am not trying to be a butt head, but once I realized if you tag an imaginary variable without substance or potential to equations, you can't define reality, I learned to change. I made it a potential so now it is not in my head but is part of reality so there is no imagination involved. It was a question of defining this potential.


A variable being uniform and independant of gravity ; does not make it imaginary . It is very much possible in reality .
 
I agree with you. But what is the nature of time's subtance or potential. If we do not define that, how do we know we are not adding or taking away something or attributing the essense of time to something that is is not? For example, the frequency of energy uses the units of time. So time is part of energy. Time is often associatd with changes of state, which will not account unless there is some form of energy/entropy.
 
I agree with you. But what is the nature of time's subtance or potential. If we do not define that, how do we know we are not adding or taking away something or attributing the essense of time to something that is is not? For example, the frequency of energy uses the units of time. So time is part of energy. Time is often associatd with changes of state, which will not account unless there is some form of energy/entropy.


So, you agree that , " time is uniform " .
 
TIME can be considered as unidirectional , uniform variable which is independant of other variables .
 
TIME also can be considered as independant variable upon which , all other variables are dependant . So , frequency , entropy , energy and all other variables are dependant upon TIME . In essence , for any variable to exist , it requires some time .
 
This is not exactly , " different flow of time " ; but it is " different flow of clocks " relative to the strength of a gravitational field , which is a measurable fact .

What are you trying to say? Are you saying that time is constant but the clocks slow?

Satellites used for GPS, because of the lower gravity, have their clocks run faster than on earth. Radioactive materials would decay more rapidly at that location. Atoms would vibrate more rapidly (for a given temperature) at that location. Animals would age more quickly at that location.
 
TIME also can be considered as independant variable upon which , all other variables are dependant . So , frequency , entropy , energy and all other variables are dependant upon TIME . In essence , for any variable to exist , it requires some time .
How time passes is dependent on theory. This is my take on an discussion of time.

The thing with time is that the standard model defines what time is, i.e. a feature of spacetime which is Lorentz invariant. The curvature of spacetime determines the rate at which time passes. Under Lorentz invariant theory the rate that time passes will be different in environments where the curvature of spacetime is different. The presence of matter curves spacetime. The acceleration of matter by the curvature (a gravitational field) or matter accelerated by any means will experience an environment of greater curvature of spacetime and will experience time dilation as a result. Time passes more slowly as the curvature of spacetime increases.

So if you are discussing the passing of time, unless you specify that your description is theory dependent and the dependent theory is not a spacetime model, you are wrong in most conversations because time is described by the generally accepted consensus theory unless otherwise specified.
 
Last edited:
How time passes is dependent on theory.

Uh, no. The passage of time during the age of the dinosaurs was the same as it is now, and I do not believe they had developed a good working theory.

A theory describes what is observed and measured. It must also be able to make predictions that are accurate.

Relativity passes both of these tests.
 
Back
Top