What is time??

[river]

Originally Posted by river
the substance of length is within the object ”

Empty claim.

Support it please.
What is this substance?

electron and proton

 

[Dywyddyr]

electron and proton

Another specious claim.
HOW are they the substance of length?
Are they not, again, the substance of the material of the object itself?

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
explain then what a dimension is to you ”

How about the standard definition.

I see

but to me dimension is not so much about points , mathematically , as is about what is necessary for something to manifest

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
electron and proton ”

Another specious claim.
HOW are they the substance of length?
Are they not, again, the substance of the material of the object itself?

yes

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
explain then what a dimension is to you ”

A dimension is a direction of movement. This has already been explained several times.

agreed

but more importantly dimension(s) is also about the object its self and its ability to manifest

 

[Dywyddyr]

I see
but to me dimension is not so much about points , mathematically , as is about
what is necessary for something to manifest

Then you're not talking about dimension, but something different. Something only you appear to know what what you mean.

yes

Then it's not the substance of length, is it?

 

[hansda]

Do you have any practical evidence that time is running faster or slower ?

Read posts 463 and 464.

Posts 463 and 464 do not mention any practical evidence . They only talked about experimental conclusions .

For example in the case of 'space' : the practical evidence is that ' our universe is expanding ' .

Similarly in the case of 'time' : Is the duration between two events increasing or decreasing ? Is the duration of an hour , increasing or decreasing ?

 

[hansda]

In this light , the earlier definition of time can be modified as :

" Time is number of oscillations of cesium(Cs) atom between two events ; where the cesium(Cs) atom is kept in a uniform force-field . " .

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
I see
but to me dimension is not so much about points , mathematically , as is about
what is necessary for something to manifest ”

Then you're not talking about dimension, but something different. Something only you appear to know what what you mean.

so your saying that a physical object has NO dimensions associated with the physical object ?

 

[river]

In this light , the earlier definition of time can be modified as :

" Time is number of oscillations of cesium(Cs) atom between two events ; where the cesium(Cs) atom is kept in a uniform force-field . " .

agreed

 

[origin]

In this light , the earlier definition of time can be modified as :

" Time is number of oscillations of cesium(Cs) atom between two events ; where the cesium(Cs) atom is kept in a uniform force-field . " .

I assume that by force-field you mean gravity. The problem is that is not time, that is a measurement of time. That measurement will of course be different for different inertial frames. If I am traveling at some high speed relative to the earth then my number of oscillations would be fewer than earths number of oscillations for the same event, such as the time for a complete rotation of the earth.

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by hansda
In this light , the earlier definition of time can be modified as :

" Time is number of oscillations of cesium(Cs) atom between two events ; where the cesium(Cs) atom is kept in a uniform force-field . " .

I assume that by force-field you mean gravity. The problem is that is not time, that is a measurement of time. That measurement will of course be different for different inertial frames. If I am traveling at some high speed relative to the earth then my number of oscillations would be fewer than earths number of oscillations for the same event, such as the time for a complete rotation of the earth.

then what is time ?

 

[Big Chiller]

Lets assume you were in a very high gravitational field, like close to a blackhole (somehow), and you were within view of the earth. You would be able to watch the earth rotate at what would seem to you to be a high rate of speed.

If the gravity was high enough you could watch the earth rotating at 365 RPM (by your clock). If you watched that for 10 minutes and then escaped that gravity and returned to earth you would find that 10 years had passed on earth but you would not have aged those 10 years.

Yes it is weird. This is beyond normal experiences but it is something that needs to be taken into account by system such as your GPS.

BTW such an extreme time dilation cannot be achieved by orbiting a supermassive black hole at all plausibly. But I believe it can be achieved much easier by traveling extremely close to the speed of light perhaps at $$\overline{9}^{-8} c$$.

 

[hansda]

I assume that by force-field you mean gravity.

Yes, gravity is force-field .

The problem is that is not time, that is a measurement of time.

Through this measurement , we can know some aspect of time.

That measurement will of course be different for different inertial frames.

I think you are talking about Lorentz Transformation .

If I am traveling at some high speed relative to the earth then my number of oscillations would be fewer than earths number of oscillations for the same event, such as the time for a complete rotation of the earth.

In this case , the force-field around your clock will be stronger , so the clock will become slower .

 

[origin]

BTW such an extreme time dilation cannot be achieved by orbiting a supermassive black hole at all plausibly. But I believe it can be achieved much easier by traveling extremely close to the speed of light perhaps at $$\overline{9}^{-8}$$ c.

Neither case is plausable. I was just trying to give a rough example to make the point.

 

[origin]

Origin
If I am traveling at some high speed relative to the earth then my number of oscillations would be fewer than earths number of oscillations for the same event, such as the time for a complete rotation of the earth.

Hansda
In this case , the force-field around your clock will be stronger , so the clock will become slower .

Velocity produces a 'force field'? How does that work?

 

[hansda]

Velocity produces a 'force field'? How does that work?

There must be a force-field around a mass . When this mass is accelerated to a high speed , the force-field around the mass may be getting stronger . Thus velocity can strengthen this force-field.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There must be a force-field around a mass

No.

When this mass is accelerated to a high speed , the force-field around the mass may be getting stronger . Thus velocity can strengthen this force-field.

No.

 

[hansda]

No.


No.

Why no ?

 

[hansda]

The way there is a magnetic field around a magnet ; electrical field around an electrically charged particle . Similarly , there can be a force-field around a mass .