Is Time's Speed Just Wild Speculation?

[matheinste]

Just some simple thoughts regarding clock rates.I am not sure if that is what is meant by the speed of time but I suppose it must be.

If our clocks, that is the clocks in the frame in which we are at rest,run at a rate other than 1 second per second then

1-- How would we know.

2-- If we knew to, what did we compare them with to arrive at this knowledge.

3-- If we know they are running at the wrong rate perhaps it would be best to set them at the correct rate, whatever that is.

4-- If a rate with which we compare our clocks, and everybody else compares theirs exists, should we call it universal time or absolute time.

Matheinste.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wasted math? Truth is never a waist.

There was no truth in it. Your logic is flawed. See below:

Had you just posted the speed I would have given you a simple answer.

Had I just posted the speed it would have been nonsensical. Speed is meaningless without providing a reference point by which to measure it.

However, using the center of our Galaxy as the reference point makes much more sense. That's why I modified your number to one that fits that reference point. Of course you can see that our speed in relation to the center of the Galaxy is in constant flux. Thus our 'speed of time' is in constant flux.

The speed of our time does not change because of a reference to some far off point. As I point out, the reference point is arbitrary. I can observe a hundred or a thousand of them in less time than it takes to name them. Do you think my speed of time changes everytime I cast my eyes upon a different star?

Thank you for bringing up the idea of multiple galaxies. The best reference point for determining our speed of time is the center of the universe. When we can measure all the speed vectors (actually only three more than I have already added..one of which is known)
then we can accurately determine the speed of our time and any galaxy. It would be in the unit of UT (Universal Time).

There is no such thing as the centre of the universe.

Finally, time is 1s/s only at a point of reference. If you consider yourself as the only real point of reference, then yes you are right. That does come across a little egocentric though.

You really need to read up on relativity. It would clear up many of the misconceptions you've stated above. All time and velocity is relative; there is no absolute.

 

[DaveC426913]

If our clocks, that is the clocks in the frame in which we are at rest

Just a clarification: By definition we are at rest in our own frame, as are all clocks in our frame.

 

[matheinste]

Just a clarification: By definition we are at rest in our own frame, as are all clocks in our frame.

Yes. What I really should have said was a clock carried with us, which amounts to the same thing.

Matheinste.

 

[scott haig]

I can see getting a bit confused because of our language: we say "time is passing" etc.--but in the most basic (Newtonian) sense time is just a ratio of distance (a thing we measure) to speed. Nothing is moving when "time moves" and therefore there is no speed of time.

BUT

I've always wondered--along similar lines-- about the putative "speed" of gravity. (Have assumed it's c but don't remember/never knew why). I'm guessing that its something like this:as a distant mass moves the change in the gravitational force vector's direction does transmit information--which has to move at subluminal speeds to prevent problems with causation.

So the question I'd like to add here is this: why is the vector particle of gravitation so hard to sense? Aren't we "sensing" them when we observe tidal forces of, say, the moon? And couldn't a pretty easy experiment be done with large masses undergoing rapid accelleration (like a a satellite between Earth and moon) to time nearby gravitational effects relative to a light signal?

(sorry to branch off here but it seems the crowd on this thread would know)
svh

 

[RLS.Jr]

Just some simple thoughts regarding clock rates.I am not sure if that is what is meant by the speed of time but I suppose it must be.

If our clocks, that is the clocks in the frame in which we are at rest,run at a rate other than 1 second per second then

1-- How would we know.

2-- If we knew to, what did we compare them with to arrive at this knowledge.

3-- If we know they are running at the wrong rate perhaps it would be best to set them at the correct rate, whatever that is.

4-- If a rate with which we compare our clocks, and everybody else compares theirs exists, should we call it universal time or absolute time.

Matheinste.

First, remember that as a primary reference point your time always runs at 1s/s. It's only when using an object traveling a different speed as the primary reference point that your time is either faster or slower than 1s/s (1s/s is always the clock speed of the primary reference point).

1-- We know that everything traveling at different speeds have different speeds of time (rates of clock speed). Since it makes more sense to have a standardized point of reference as a primary reference point than everyone using themselves. We can conclude that our clock speed is only 1s/s when our speed equals that of the primary reference point.

2-- When comparing time speeds in and around Earth (satellites, planes, the moon) , it would be best to use the Earth as the primary reference point and have units ET (Earth Time). Progressively more significant primary reference points would be the sun (SST-Solar System Time); the center of the Milky Way Galaxy (MGT); with the center of the universe as the best (UT) when all vectors of speed can be calculated.

3-- There is no wrong or right rate. Just more significant primary reference points when talking about two or more objects that have different velocities.

4-- UT or Universal Time (when we are able to calculate all the speed vectors) would be most significant when dealing with referencing objects outside our galaxy. For most practical purposes ET is adequate. Absolute time would only be a valid unit if we were able to determine that space had limits and what all the speed vectors from the center were.

Lastly, an example showing that it is less valid for each of us to use ourselves as primary points of reference:
If you are sitting in a seat. Are you motionless? What if that seat is on a train traveling
80 mph? You could still consider yourself as the primary point of reference and think that the Earth and everyone on it was traveling, but you can see the inherent problems with this point of view. It is more valid to use the Earth as the primary reference point and describe yourself as traveling 80 mph along it's surface.

 

[RLS.Jr]

There was no truth in it. Your logic is flawed. See below:


Had I just posted the speed it would have been nonsensical. Speed is meaningless without providing a reference point by which to measure it.


The speed of our time does not change because of a reference to some far off point. As I point out, the reference point is arbitrary. I can observe a hundred or a thousand of them in less time than it takes to name them. Do you think my speed of time changes everytime I cast my eyes upon a different star?


There is no such thing as the centre of the universe.


You really need to read up on relativity. It would clear up many of the misconceptions you've stated above. All time and velocity is relative; there is no absolute.

Ok, my logic is flawed? Let's see:

- If only a speed is given then the 'speed of time' difference can be calculated using 0 mps as the primary reference point (which is inherent in the statement). Is it nonsensical to say that you are in a rocket ship traveling 17580 mph?

- If your speed is constantly changing in relation to a primary reference point (e.g. center of the Milky Way Galaxy) then your speed of time is constantly changing in direct proportion. It is easier to see using the center of our solar system as the primary reference point. When the revolution of the Earth (~900 mph) aligns (is the same direction) with it's orbit around the sun, then you are traveling ~1800 mph faster than when it's traveling in the opposite direction of the orbit.

- Your speed of time is always experienced as 1s/s as you can only experience reality with yourself as the primary reference point. But in relation to every star you see in the sky, your speed of time is different. You said it yourself "All time and velocity is relative; there is no absolute".

- There is no center of the universe? Is there a center of your room? If there was a 'Big Bang' and mater/energy continues to spread outward in all directions, then there is a center. If fact, there is most likely a massive black hole at the center of the universe as there is at the centers of Galaxies.

 

[Hyrage]

Ok, my logic is flawed? Let's see:

- If only a speed is given then the 'speed of time' difference can be calculated using 0 mps as the primary reference point (which is inherent in the statement). Is it nonsensical to say that you are in a rocket ship traveling 17580 mph?

- If your speed is constantly changing in relation to a primary reference point (e.g. center of the Milky Way Galaxy) then your speed of time is constantly changing in direct proportion. It is easier to see using the center of our solar system as the primary reference point. When the revolution of the Earth (~900 mph) aligns (is the same direction) with it's orbit around the sun, then you are traveling ~1800 mph faster than when it's traveling in the opposite direction of the orbit.

- Your speed of time is always experienced as 1s/s as you can only experience reality with yourself as the primary reference point. But in relation to every star you see in the sky, your speed of time is different. You said it yourself "All time and velocity is relative; there is no absolute".

- There is no center of the universe? Is there a center of your room? If there was a 'Big Bang' and mater/energy continues to spread outward in all directions, then there is a center. If fact, there is most likely a massive black hole at the center of the universe as there is at the centers of Galaxies.

There should be a center to everything that exists.
Time is created by existing things & doesn't exist; it's a perception and you can act and think faster than it.

 

[DrGreg]

There is no center of the universe?

No, in the same way that there is no point on the Earth's surface that is the centre of the Earth's surface.

 

[RLS.Jr]

No, in the same way that there is no point on the Earth's surface that is the centre of the Earth's surface.

Are you then saying that our Universe is two dimensional? Because there is most certainly a center of our three dimensional Earth.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you then saying that our Universe is two dimensional? Because there is most certainly a center of our three dimensional Earth.

Really? What latitude and longitude is it at?

The surface of the Earth has no centre, just as the volume of the universe has no centre.

Your statements are based upon incorrect preconceptions. You'll have to get the basics right before you can argue sensically about things built upon them.

- There is no center of the universe? Is there a center of your room? If there was a 'Big Bang' and mater/energy continues to spread outward in all directions, then there is a center. If fact, there is most likely a massive black hole at the center of the universe as there is at the centers of Galaxies.

More misconceptions. How can you possibly deign to put forth a hypothesis about cosmology when you are being tripped up by the basics? There is no way to be more gentle. You need to read more. Or at least, do more asking of questions and less stating of claims. At PF, our goal is to educate.

 

[RLS.Jr]

Really? What latitude and longitude is it at?

The surface of the Earth has no centre, just as the volume of the universe has no centre.

Your statements are based upon incorrect preconceptions. You'll have to get the basics right before you can argue sensically about things built upon them.



More misconceptions. How can you possibly deign to put forth a hypothesis about cosmology when you are being tripped up by the basics? There is no way to be more gentle. You need to read more. Or at least, do more asking of questions and less stating of claims. At PF, our goal is to educate.

LOL
You talk about basics, but you don't even concede that there is a center to the Earth. Let me give you a hint, it's hot. You offer that there is no center to the outside of a sphere as proof that there is no center to the universe. Nice logic.

It's easy to act condescending saying that I need to read more without giving reasoning as to how my position is wrong. Well educate us at PF with evidence or logic on how my assessment on the speed of our time is wrong. (We can get back to your two dimensional universe later)

 

[DaveC426913]

You offer that there is no center to the outside of a sphere as proof that there is no center to the universe. Nice logic.

It is not a proof; it is an analogy, to help you grasp the idea.

And it is not my idea. I take credit for none of it. You will find this in any basic book or website on the subject.
Here are the first couple of Google hits for "where is the centre of universe":
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae614.cfm
Feel free to find answers for yourself.


Or, let's let anyone else here on PF weigh in.

It's easy to act condescending saying that I need to read more

I have no wish to be condescending. You are making claims that you have no business making. That puts you in an awkward position.

If I added 2 and 2 and got 5, you'd correct me before letting me proceed with a discussion. If I insisted, you wouldn't try to refute my logic, you'd tell me to go read a math book - it's not your job to teach me arithmetic.

I say again: ask more questions; make fewer claims.

 

[RLS.Jr]

It is not a proof; it is an analogy, to help you grasp the idea.

And it is not my idea. I take credit for none of it. You will find this in any basic book or website on the subject.
Here are the first couple of Google hits for "where is the centre of universe":
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae614.cfm
Feel free to find answers for yourself.


Or, let's let anyone else here on PF weigh in.


I have no wish to be condescending. You are making claims that you have no business making. That puts you in an awkward position.

If I added 2 and 2 and got 5, you'd correct me before letting me proceed with a discussion. If I insisted, you wouldn't try to refute my logic, you'd tell me to go read a math book - it's not your job to teach me arithmetic.

I say again: ask more questions; make fewer claims.

Stick with the subject.
I have no issue with you saying that my use of Einstein's theory is inaccurate. However, you give no logic or support. I am stating a logical extension of Einstein's time dilation. If you disagree, indicate why. If it's because you read that it's wrong, let us know what the author said and we will give him credit for the argument.

I maintain that my use of primary reference points is valid. If you can't or are unwilling to state the error in my reasoning or calculations on the speed of our time, stop telling me I'm wrong. (i.e. I can explain to you why your 2+2=5 is wrong. Can you explain why you feel my 'speed of our time' is wrong?)

And I encourage others to join in..on either side. (Just please add more to the discussion than "I've read more books")

 

[Nabeshin]

- There is no center of the universe? Is there a center of your room? If there was a 'Big Bang' and mater/energy continues to spread outward in all directions, then there is a center. If fact, there is most likely a massive black hole at the center of the universe as there is at the centers of Galaxies.

I must reiterate DaveC's grievances. This statement is, to put it bluntly, uneducated. You are essentially attempting to apply common sense and analogies to a problem which inherently defies common sense. Analogies such as the surface of the Earth one DaveC brings up (Note the word SURFACE) are very carefully crafted by people who already understand the mathematics behind the theory attempting to explain it in a visual manner without giving too many misconceptions. I am sorry, but when I read this claim that you so boldly state without any uncertainty, you lose all credibility. To use another of DaveC's analogies, if a man wants to lecture me in mathematics and begins by saying 2+2=5, so clearly ... I will walk away immediately.

The point here is that the assertion that there exists a central point of the universe seems to be a critical point of whatever... theory or whatever you have been discussing. Since this is not the case, any further discussion is moot. End of story.

 

[DaveC426913]

I maintain that my use of primary reference points is valid. If you can't or are unwilling to state the error in my reasoning or calculations on the speed of our time, stop telling me I'm wrong. (i.e. I can explain to you why your 2+2=5 is wrong. Can you explain why you feel my 'speed of our time' is wrong?)

You yourself followed you own logic of "absolute reference points" to reach this conclusion:

The best reference point for determining our speed of time is the center of the universe. ... It would be in the unit of UT (Universal Time).

There is no such thing. This is basic modern cosmology. You need to know this in order to have a meaningful discussion.

The onus is not upon me to refute your arguments, the onus is upon you to first know the facts before basing claims upon them.

 

[Hyrage]

So there is no center to our universe, really? If there is such thing as gravity, there must be a center, isn't it?

 

[DaveC426913]

So there is no center to our universe, really?

https://www.physicsforums.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1643"

 

[Dale]

Are you then saying that our Universe is two dimensional? Because there is most certainly a center of our three dimensional Earth.

The geometric point is that when you are dealing with curved geometry it is easily possible for the "center" of a space to lie outside that space. I.e. it exists only in some higher-dimensional flat space in which the curved space is embedded.

When talking about the geometry of the universe any such higher dimensional space is entirely non-physical. Thus the universe has no center in any physical sense.

The surface of a sphere is really a good analogy, you should try to learn from it.

 

[Hyrage]

Even if the universe really was a torus, including that everything moves inside and outside of it, it would be possible to find it's center.

Everything that exist is geometrical... and I guess our universe too.

http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/images/scalar_torus.gif

 

[Hootenanny]

Even if the universe really was a torus, including that everything moves inside and outside of it, it would be possible to find it's center.

What do you mean inside and outside our universe?

Everything that exist is geometrical... and I guess our universe too.

Nonsense, many things have a geometrical interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that are geometrical, what ever 'being geometrical' means.

 

[Hyrage]

What do you mean inside and outside our universe?

Nonsense, many things have a geometrical interpretation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that are geometrical, what ever 'being geometrical' means.

If you look at the .gifs... you'll find your answer.

And from that following image, it strangely looks like a part of the torus...

http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/mediarelease/images/expanding_universe_nasa.jpg

 

[Hootenanny]

If you look at the .gifs... you'll find your answer.

I don't need to look at the images, I know precisely what a torus looks like and they don't answer my question.

What do you mean a torus? Do you mean the surface of a torus, or do you mean the volume enclosed by the surface?

Why don't you stop being cryptic and just directly answer the direct questions?

 

[Hyrage]

I meant torus like a toroidal field.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hyrage, when you are using a torus to represent the universe, you cannot talk about the "centre of the torus". The representation involves only the surface of the object. You cannot fly to- point to- or have gravity emanating from- any point that is not on the surface.

 

[Hyrage]

Hyrage, when you are using a torus to represent the universe, you cannot talk about the "centre of the torus". The representation involves only the surface of the object. You cannot fly to- point to- or have gravity emanating from- any point that is not on the surface.

And I totally disagree with that. A center is a fictive point that you create (an object itself), that goes beyond any surfaces...

By using math, you can find the center of an object. If you take the Tetrahedron by example, it is mostly easy to find it out... You can find the middle point of any polygon and link the centers to their opposite vertex to get the center of the geometrical form and it's not on the surface. You could do that for anything, even a sphere or a torus...

http://www.unifiedworlds.com/tetrahedron.jpg

However, maybe you could give me a deeper explanation, because for now... I can't agree.

 

[Hootenanny]

By using math, you can find the center of an object. If you take the Tetrahedron by example, it is mostly easy to find it out... You can find the middle point of any polygon and link the centers to their opposite vertex to get the center of the geometrical form and it's not on the surface. You could do that for anything, even a sphere or a torus...

Of course one can find the geometrical centre of an object, but the question is how is that interpreted physically. If the torus representation pertains only to the surface of the torus, then although one can find a point that is geometrically at the centre of a torus, this point lies outside the representation and therefore cannot be interpreted.

 

[Hyrage]

Of course one can find the geometrical centre of an object, but the question is how is that interpreted physically. If the torus representation pertains only to the surface of the torus, then although one can find a point that is geometrically at the centre of a torus, this point lies outside the representation and therefore cannot be interpreted.

However, what if the center of the is unified instead of being made of a hole like a donut. A "hole" so thin that it doesn't even look like a hole, but the geometrical shape really looks like a torus or a toroidal field. So if everything moves as a toroidal field, everything will one day pass by there.

http://www.geocities.com/human_energy_fields/index_files/image004.gif
In other terms, maybe there is really a center afterall.

 

[Hootenanny]

This thread has just turned into wild speculation that has no place at PF.