Oh, you're brilliant. Shazaam, a theory only applies if it is in place. Before that it doesn't work that way.
What is time??
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
So if we arbitrarily alter the theory time will pass differently to accommodate the new theory? :shrug:
Are you saying that time as it is described by current theory is reality? Or just reality within experimental constraints? I am still following the scientific method which has an important tennant, that being tentativeness.
Not at all.
Your statement reads (as it is written) that time is subject to theory, rather than being a reality.
Time is what it is: theories are our explanation. Whether the theory changes or not time remains time.
PS, scientific method doesn't have tennants. Maybe you mean tenet.
I see time as a potential, therefore it is not uniform, anymore than visible light and X-rays are uniform. They are both particle and waves but with some difference. Gravity can alter the pace at which time is flowing in a reference, slows time, causing a change within the uniformity.
If you look at special relativity there are three equations, one each each for time, distance and mass. If we apply SR to a moving reference, when time slows and distance contracts, all the forces of nature will adjust to the reference, even though forces propagate at C and should be independent of reference.
For example, if I have two magnets attracting by the EM force, it will take X time to come together. If space-time is contracted, it will take longer for the two magnetics to come together. The force has adjusted so that it appears the force is now different in our reference.
To me this meant, time, distance and mass relativity (potential) which is a form of energy/potential, can be used to define all the variables curently used , sincd all these can adjusted by just three variables. By modeling time as a potential, you only need two other variables to do what currently takes dozens of variables to do.
Pick any current variable besides charge and rest mass. When a space-time reference changes time, distance and mass potential, there is an integrated adjustment in all the laws of nature.
If you look at special relativity there are three equations, one each each for time, distance and mass. If we apply SR to a moving reference, when time slows and distance contracts, all the forces of nature will adjust to the reference, even though forces propagate at C and should be independent of reference.
For example, if I have two magnets attracting by the EM force, it will take X time to come together. If space-time is contracted, it will take longer for the two magnetics to come together. The force has adjusted so that it appears the force is now different in our reference.
To me this meant, time, distance and mass relativity (potential) which is a form of energy/potential, can be used to define all the variables curently used , sincd all these can adjusted by just three variables. By modeling time as a potential, you only need two other variables to do what currently takes dozens of variables to do.
Pick any current variable besides charge and rest mass. When a space-time reference changes time, distance and mass potential, there is an integrated adjustment in all the laws of nature.
Yes, that is what I meant, thanks.Not at all.
Your statement reads (as it is written) that time is subject to theory, rather than being a reality.
Time is what it is: theories are our explanation. Whether the theory changes or not time remains time.
PS, scientific method doesn't have tennants. Maybe you mean tenet.
What my statement says is, "How time passes is dependent on theory". You take exception instead of applying enough critical thinking to read that in context of the thread posts preceding it to mean, "In a discussion about how time passes, if you are not talking about time from the perspective of standard theory, you would have to specify the applicable theory that you are invoking". It just seemed clear to me that Hansda was invoking some "different" theory.
I opened the door to a presentation, lol.
Depends on the person.
The time depends on age. As you are older, the time passes faster. (self evident)
So the theory is:
Time depends on the age of the person.
You then claim it is self-evident that I am older
:bugeye: Actually there is some truth to that theory, lol.
So you're claiming that when you're old an hour isn't an hour any more?
Time does not pass faster, however our perception of its passage alters.
WTF? Invoking a theory that does not correspond to what is observed is not a theory - it is crap.
If I invoke a theory that says that wellwisher will only post things that makes sense, do you think that will have any affect on what he will write?
Simply astounding. I guess many of the theories in physics are so beyond your comprehension that you think you can just make stuff up and it will be just as viable. Well, it doesn't work that way.
Why?
On what evidence?
Huh?
Your "therefore" doesn't appear to be a therefore. And what is not uniform about visible light or x-rays?
Why?
And back to word salad.
Really, origin.
The passage of time when young or old does not change, though the psychology of how we perceive the world as we gain experience with age does affect our perception of the rate at which time passes.
The very young have little in the way of past experience upon which to draw and compare what they see now, so it takes them longer, their brains longer to assemble some picture of the world from their sensory data. Thus they experience the process as slowed when compared to an adult with more experience.
The adult having seen more of the world and previously assembled some comprehensible understanding of what their senses provide, relies more heavily on past experience to fill in the details. That use of experience requires less time and effort, thus time is perceived to move faster for the adult.
The first few times a child sees a dog they must see the whole dog to know it is a dog. They must do this with a number of different dogs before they recognize the pattern and are able to know that both a German Shepard and a Poodle are both dogs. An adult having seen many dogs over a great span of time can often recognize a dog from little more than a wagging tail, while the dog itself remains hidden from view.
As adults we fill in much of the world we see around us from memory. To some extent the world becomes what we expect it to be. And time seems to fly by.
There is real wisdom in the old saying, "Stop to smell the roses." As adults we we very often stop even looking for the fine detail of the world around us. This is perhaps one of the reasons "eye witnesses" so often have very different descriptions of events.
But I digress now... Young or old time passes at the same rate. We just tend to experience time differently when we are old than we once did when we were young.
Or maybe it is just the wrinkles of age that mess with time. Children don't have as many wrinkles....
If you really believe it and insist on it constantly, anything is possible.
Or you will come to believe it, at any rate.
Sometime observations experiments are a better way to get a message across:
If you get a piece of paper and draw a line 5cm's long, then mark each of the cm's contained within the five. Your view of that 5cm's is that each individual one is a set defined measurement, however if you pick that piece of paper up and place it infront of you to act like a horizon, you will see that line appear to shrink off into the distance due to the inverse square rule. It doesn't mean the lines changes size or that the cm's have, just your perspective.
Again if you take the piece of paper and you create multiple corrugated bends, on an imaginary plane you place the two end points of that 5cm's closer together, however that line is still 5cm's, it hasn't changed.
Now each of these examples don't of course do justice to time, however they at least give you an interpretation that various events like perception or spacial distortion can effect the observed outcome. However that observed outcome is that imaginary plane, not the actual one.
If you get a piece of paper and draw a line 5cm's long, then mark each of the cm's contained within the five. Your view of that 5cm's is that each individual one is a set defined measurement, however if you pick that piece of paper up and place it infront of you to act like a horizon, you will see that line appear to shrink off into the distance due to the inverse square rule. It doesn't mean the lines changes size or that the cm's have, just your perspective.
Again if you take the piece of paper and you create multiple corrugated bends, on an imaginary plane you place the two end points of that 5cm's closer together, however that line is still 5cm's, it hasn't changed.
Now each of these examples don't of course do justice to time, however they at least give you an interpretation that various events like perception or spacial distortion can effect the observed outcome. However that observed outcome is that imaginary plane, not the actual one.
Guess, for me which it is more important?
Ah, right. So you don't own any clocks and you don't make appointments (or you always turn up at the wrong time for them).Guess, for me which it is more important?
I do not wear watch.
rarely
it happens(or you always turn up at the wrong time for them).
So....
2 synchronised atomic clocks, one on Earth and one in space, would gradually go out of sync due to the gravity or lack of.
But this doesn't mean 'time' itself moves faster or slower. It just means the device we measure time with would change.
If there was an old clockwork clock placed next to each of the 2 atomic clocks, their time wouldn't alter because of gravity, would they?
2 synchronised atomic clocks, one on Earth and one in space, would gradually go out of sync due to the gravity or lack of.
But this doesn't mean 'time' itself moves faster or slower. It just means the device we measure time with would change.
If there was an old clockwork clock placed next to each of the 2 atomic clocks, their time wouldn't alter because of gravity, would they?