Speed of Time

[SelfSim]

The oscillation is the reference.

The oscillation is translated to produce Physicists' objective definition of time, aka: the measure of a change in a physical quantity or a magnitude used to quantify the duration of events. (In simple terms: time is what a clock reads).

Notice that objective definition is conceived by the mind of the Physicist there .. and it is still observer dependent.

 

[Shemjaza]

The space in a cesium atom doesn't change.

Cesium atoms are within soace.... and different atoms will be subject to different flows of time... removing it as an objective measure

 

[SelfSim]

Cesium atoms are within soace.... and different atoms will be subject to different flows of time... removing it as an objective measure

Hopefully, we'd both agree that 'a second' is an objective measure of proper time in an observer's (local) inertial reference frame?

 

[AV1611VET]

Time occurs when distance is divided by velocity.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hopefully, we'd both agree that 'a second' is an objective measure of proper time in an observer's (local) inertial reference frame?

Certainly.

But not objective in an absolute sense.

 

[SelfSim]

Certainly.

But not objective in an absolute sense.

'An absolute sense'?

I thought you wanted to discuss the science?

 

[BeyondET]

The oscillation is translated to produce Physicists' objective definition of time, aka: the measure of a change in a physical quantity or a magnitude used to quantify the duration of events. (In simple terms: time is what a clock reads).

Notice that objective definition is conceived by the mind of the Physicist there .. and it is still observer dependent.

It still takes a movement for an observer to observe it.

In the beginning is a statement about the start of a time frame.

 

[BeyondET]

Cesium atoms are within soace.... and different atoms will be subject to different flows of time... removing it as an objective measure

That's totally wrong

 

[Shemjaza]

'An absolute sense'?

I thought you wanted to discuss the science?

Yes?

Measurements may be objective within a frame of reference... but that frame of reference is demonstrably not universal, so as far as the model supported by evidence an absolute or universal frame of reference does not exist.

That's totally wrong

How so?

One cesium atom that has moved away then back at relativistic speeds will have oscillated fewer times than one that stayed here.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Reminds me of Husserl's Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness'. and others who pondered the question.

Phenomenology and Time-Consciousness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Temporal Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[SelfSim]

Time flows differently depending on relative velocity and gravity... there isn't an objective reference frame for time.
{... your post #30}

Measurements may be objective within a frame of reference... but that frame of reference is demonstrably not universal, so as far as the model supported by evidence an absolute or universal frame of reference does not exist.

Ah .. so AIUI, you've changed your position from your post #30 above, such that there is apparently a frame of reference, (which includes an observer), which allows for objective time .. (which I now easily agree with).

This raises the intriguing observation that you appear to accept various frames of reference having 'fluidity', yet you seem unwilling to treat 'objective' in the same way(?) Why is that(?), I find myself asking?

I mean; what/where is the evidence (and the test) that allows you to rule out subjective elements leading up to declaring something as being 'objective' or 'not objective'? The reason I ask this is, that it is a crucial question for science. I have my own answer, (given in my post#35), but that is subject to change with new evidence .. (my door is thus, now open).

 

[SelfSim]

Reminds me of Husserl's Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness'. and others who pondered the question.
...

Pity that .. It would be more advantageous to be reminded of the science perspectives underpinning the discussion, as you can be more less assured of a conclusion leading towards further progress of practical value.

 

[Shemjaza]

Ah .. so AIUI, you've changed your position from your post #30 above, such that there is apparently a frame of reference, (which includes an observer), which allows for objective time .. (which I now easily agree with).

This raises the intriguing observation that you appear to accept various frames of reference having 'fluidity', yet you seem unwilling to treat 'objective' in the same way(?) Why is that(?), I find myself asking?

I mean; what/where is the evidence (and the test) that allows you to rule out subjective elements leading up to declaring something as being 'objective' or 'not objective'? The reason I ask this is, that it is a crucial question for science. I have my own answer, (given in my post#35), but that is subject to change with new evidence .. (my door is thus, now open).

I don't mean to imply I've changed my mind, but the context of "objective" and "objective within a frame of reference" are different.

I could acknowledge that a child was the best runner in his class, but not accept that he'd win any Olympic even because he's the best runner.

When we are discussing the flow of time that the flow of time is not universal is counter to any kind of intuition and the fact that methods may be objective within a frame of reference is a distraction and is often, incorrectly, used as a counter argument to the evidenced variation in time and space.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't mean to imply I've changed my mind, but the context of "objective" and "objective within a frame of reference" are different.
...
When we are discussing the flow of time that the flow of time is not universal is counter to any kind of intuition and the fact that methods may be objective within a frame of reference is a distraction and is often, incorrectly, used as a counter argument to the evidenced variation in time and space.

I understand what you are saying and can see that's its fairly standard representation of Relativity. I'm not questioning the well established and well tested theory part of what you're saying there.

What I'm having difficulty with is objectivity being held as an attribute of a given reference frame. I guess that all depends on one's definition of objectivity and how one arrives at that.

I view objectivity in science in a different way based on making the distinction of the dichotomy: objective vs. subjective. What is objective is simply the other side of the coin of what is subjective, so its all based on how the observer distinguishes themselves from the observation. That separation is at the heart of science, and as soon as one makes it, one sees what "objective" means in science.

So, an observer co-located with his instrument makes the same distinction between the subject (the scientist) and the object (clock observations) as another observer does, between the subject (themselves) and the distant object (eg: pulsar emission observations). This is objectivity in science and it isn't dependent on contextual differences between the respective frames.

Methodological observations are what make the separation between the subject (the scientist) and the object (the observations). As an illustrative example, some of the ancient Greeks trusted their own reasoning power, and distrusted observations as being based on frail senses, yet they could still reach a great degree of consensus about how the world "had to be". But they were not being objective, because they did not separate themselves from the object of their inquiry ... they were only learning about themselves, even if in a consensus way (ie: a 'standard' interpretation amongst themselves).

At the end of the day, neither of our respective definitions change the practical utility value of Relativity in any way, (eg: GPS corrections work). However I suspect there may well be circularity in your definition of objectivity(?)

So, out of interest, what definition are you using for 'objective'?

 

[Shemjaza]

I understand what you are saying and can see that's its fairly standard representation of Relativity. I'm not questioning the well established and well tested theory part of what you're saying there.

What I'm having difficulty with is objectivity being held as an attribute of a given reference frame. I guess that all depends on one's definition of objectivity and how one arrives at that.

I view objectivity in science in a different way based on making the distinction of the dichotomy: objective vs. subjective. What is objective is simply the other side of the coin of what is subjective, so its all based on how the observer distinguishes themselves from the observation. That separation is at the heart of science, and as soon as one makes it, one sees what "objective" means in science.

So, an observer co-located with his instrument makes the same distinction between the subject (the scientist) and the object (clock observations) as another observer does, between the subject (themselves) and the distant object (eg: pulsar emission observations). This is objectivity in science and it isn't dependent on contextual differences between the respective frames.

Methodological observations are what make the separation between the subject (the scientist) and the object (the observations). As an illustrative example, some of the ancient Greeks trusted their own reasoning power, and distrusted observations as being based on frail senses, yet they could still reach a great degree of consensus about how the world "had to be". But they were not being objective, because they did not separate themselves from the object of their inquiry ... they were only learning about themselves, even if in a consensus way (ie: a 'standard' interpretation amongst themselves).

At the end of the day, neither of our respective definitions change the practical utility value of Relativity in any way, (eg: GPS corrections work). However I suspect there may well be circularity in your definition of objectivity(?)

So, out of interest, what definition are you using for 'objective'?

I think I've been convinced by how you've put this here.

I was treating "relative to frame of reference" as synonymous with "relative to subject".

I'll accept that something like the consistent oscillation of atoms is an objective metric... while still not demonstrating a universally consistent measure of time.

 

[SelfSim]

I think I've been convinced by how you've put this here.

Goodness me! I don't think I've ever seen before that at CFs!
We should congratualte ourselves and celebrate?!

I was treating "relative to frame of reference" as synonymous with "relative to subject".

Yes .. co-ordinate systems are (re)assignable at will.
We see this all the time when discussing black hole effects (including time dilation effects).

I'll accept that something like the consistent oscillation of atoms is an objective metric... while still not demonstrating a universally consistent measure of time.

I know there's an ongoing hunt for astronomical object pairings which might provide tests for possible violations of the Strong Equivalence Principle, (including time dilation effects), in different gravitational regimes (or reference frames). I don't think any violations have been found thus far but I think String Theory (ST) has been used to partially motivate finding such scenarios, (for what that's worth). In those instances, the product there is falsification investigations of Relativity .. which are always a useful exercise.

(One might therefore also say that, at the moment, our minds can cover more 'ground' than the universe can reveal to us .. Now I'm starting to sound like the OP .. but at least with more objectivity leading up to that precipice).

 

[Landon Caeli]

Heat speeds time, while coldness slows time.

That's why food lasrs longer in the fridge/freezer, and why your fingers move slower in freezing temps.

Lizzards start to run fast when it gets hot in the desert, and fire is the literal rapid movements of matter, in a state of excessive speed, and ice is literally water "frozen in time'...

Psych.

 

[Landon Caeli]

...People who live in the SouthWest always complain that their life has passed them by, and say things like "where did the time go, geeze"..?

...People in Minnesota and Canada complain about boredom, and want to legalize assisted suicide, because they can't wait to "just get it over with already".

this is how we know time is slower where it's cold, and faster where it's hot.

 

[tharkun73]

Time is a secondary measurement of distance because all measurements of time measure a known distance against an unknown one. Minkowski and later Einstein treated time as a 4th dimension to flatten their mathematicl field and make the opreations they were performing easier to handle; but that doesn't mean that time actually exists as a 4th dimension in reality. Time is always measured within a 3D coordinate system and not outside it.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

If the speed of time is infinite does that mean the speed of everything throughout time is also infinite?

Or is it 1s/s slower than time?