Speed of Time

[SelfSim]

Fine, give me your model, cowboy.

The thread is about time. I'm not here to discuss the models of science.

 

[SelfSim]

That's fair.

But if we didn't try to reply when a question was malformed or confused then there'd be a whole lot less discussion on this forum.

.. and we are replying to the OP question aren't we?

 

[public hermit]

The thread is about time. I'm not here to discuss the models of science.

That's a good call because if your model doesn't include time, it's not science.

 

[Shemjaza]

.. and we are replying to the OP question aren't we?

Trying to dig some sense out of nonsense is worthwhile.

 

[Jo555]

I wanted an accurate measurement of time. The conclusion that I have been led to has been very intriguing. So, I decided to share it.

Speed of time is infinite. You might be perplexed. How can that be. Wouldn't it result in all time just happening at once, thus reaching the end of time?

My main point that has led to me to this conclusion is the duration of time itself. Time it self cannot have a duration. Thus, mathematically, speed of time is infinite.

My first reaction to this was ...

Google Image Result for https://media1.giphy.com/media/dOSRTuUFUdjtP1fTi4/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952kfukhms5i9zqx8mttxd87v817216x7sb98elcrna&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

But I took another look and your main point appears to be a logical conclusion.

 

[SelfSim]

That's a good call because if your model doesn't include time, it's not science.

I was referring to what model I might hold for what science is.

Obviously all models of classical Physics include the concept of time.

 

[sjastro]

Trying to dig some sense out of nonsense is worthwhile.

It is nonsense and the exercise becomes is there is any physics that bears any resemblance to this.
The closest is the velocity of stationary objects in space-time which might seen contradictory but an object may have a zero spatial velocity does not mean its velocity through time is zero.

With the aid of Minkowski space-time diagrams the velocity of a stationary object through time is the speed of light c.

​

Generally the vertical axis is expressed in units of ct which is distance so that both horizontal and vertical axes are in the same unit.
The blue line indicates the object is stationary at x=0 but is travelling through time at a velocity of c along the time axis where x=0.
This of course doesn't mean time has a velocity of c. The dashed red lines indicate photons travel through both space and time in equal proportions hence the 45 degree lines.
An object travelling in both space and time lies between the dashed lines, beyond this it exceeds the speed of light which leads to violation of causality.

 

[SelfSim]

It is nonsense and the exercise becomes is there is any physics that bears any resemblance to this.
The closest is the velocity of stationary objects in space-time which might seen contradictory but an object may have a zero spatial velocity does not mean its velocity through time is zero.

With the aid of Minkowski space-time diagrams the velocity of a stationary object through time is the speed of light c.

View attachment 362117
​

Generally the vertical axis is expressed in units of ct which is distance so that both horizontal and vertical axes are in the same unit.
The blue line indicates the object is stationary at x=0 but is travelling through time at a velocity of c along the time axis where x=0.
This of course doesn't mean time has a velocity of c. The dashed red lines indicate photons travel through both space and time in equal proportions hence the 45 degree lines.
An object travelling in both space and time lies between the dashed lines, beyond this it exceeds the speed of light which leads to violation of causality.

Glad you showed up in this thread because I'll bet the OP issue is one of that the maths works out but that doesn't translate into physics(?)

 

[Neogaia777]

The universe is 13.7-8 billion years old everywhere, and nothing can or will ever change that ever. Not even being able to cross very great lengths of it in very short time periods, if that ever became possible, etc. The universe is at the same age, and therefore in the same time, that can't ever be changed, equally everywhere.

 

[Shemjaza]

The universe is 13.7-8 billion years old everywhere, and nothing can or will ever change that ever. Not even being able to cross very great lengths of it in very short time periods, if that ever became possible, etc. The universe is at the same age, and therefore in the same time, that can't ever be changed, equally everywhere.

Not really true.

Time flows differently depending on relative velocity and gravity... there isn't an objective reference frame for time.

An object that has been very close to a supermassive for, from our planet's perspective, a very long time would have experiences less time than similarly aged objects in flatter spacetime like on Earth.

 

[Neogaia777]

Not really true.

Time flows differently depending on relative velocity and gravity... there isn't an objective reference frame for time.

An object that has been very close to a supermassive for, from our planet's perspective, a very long time would have experiences less time than similarly aged objects in flatter spacetime like on Earth.

Individual local objects, or certain local locales can all have their local flow rate of time go slightly slower or slightly faster depending, but that doesn't affect the age, and therefore time, of the rest of the universe, which has aged 13.7-8 billion years equally everywhere, etc.

 

[Shemjaza]

Individual local objects, or certain local locales can all have their local flow rate of time go slightly slower or slightly faster depending, but that doesn't affect the age, and therefore time, of the rest of the universe, which has aged 13.7-8 billion years equally everywhere, etc.

Don't you see the contradiction of "local flow rate" and "equally everywhere"?

The space and time on Earth may be pretty similar to the open space and other planets across our galaxy... but it's all pretty different to other areas in the Universe and even exceptional areas within our galaxy.

As I was discussing before, even the difference between time on the surface and time on a geostationary satellite is measurable.

 

[David Lamb]

I wanted an accurate measurement of time. The conclusion that I have been led to has been very intriguing. So, I decided to share it.

Speed of time is infinite. You might be perplexed. How can that be. Wouldn't it result in all time just happening at once, thus reaching the end of time?

My main point that has led to me to this conclusion is the duration of time itself. Time it self cannot have a duration. Thus, mathematically, speed of time is infinite.

But if speed is the rate at which something happens, time itself is needed to measure speed (miles per hour, feet per second, etc.) Time cannot be a measure of itself - it would be nonsense to talk about seconds per second, for example.

 

[BeyondET]

Not really true.

Time flows differently depending on relative velocity and gravity... there isn't an objective reference frame for time.

Cesium atoms and quasar's

 

[SelfSim]

... there isn't an objective reference frame for time.

The observer makes the distinction between objective and subjective.
Eg: in @sjastro's posted Minkowski spacetime diagram, the vertical axis, (a dimension) of 'ct' was a subjective choice. It could have been anything but it was asserted as being objective for a specific purpose. It was a good choice as it serves to demonstrate the boundaries of causality and the effects of a constant 'c'. The same applies for the the x-axis too.
There's nothing special about those choices, except when it comes to making sense to other alike-thinking humans, I might add.

 

[Shemjaza]

Cesium atoms and quasar's

Both dependent on frame of reference.

The observer makes the distinction between objective and subjective.
Eg: in @sjastro's posted Minkowski spacetime diagram, the vertical axis, (a dimension) of 'ct' was a subjective choice. It could have been anything but it was asserted as being objective for a specific purpose. It was a good choice as it serves to demonstrate the boundaries of causality and the effects of a constant 'c'. The same applies for the the x-axis too.
There's nothing special about those choices, except when it comes to making sense to other alike-thinking humans, I might add.

The necessity of an observer is the definition of subjective.

 

[SelfSim]

The necessity of an observer is the definition of subjective.

Can you please elaborate?
I'm noticing that an observer is necessary for making the distinction between subjective and objective.
In the example I cited, we can see that a scientific thinker made that distinction.

 

[BeyondET]

Both dependent on frame of reference.

The oscillation is the reference.

 

[Shemjaza]

The oscillation is the reference.

That doesn't work if the oscillation changes based on what space you observe it from.

 

[BeyondET]

That doesn't work if the oscillation changes based on what space you observe it from.

The space in a cesium atom doesn't change.