Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Pondering Time - Are there 2 temporal dimensions? Absolute AND Relative?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    23

    Pondering Time - Are there 2 temporal dimensions? Absolute AND Relative?

    A clock is a device that counts durations of processes (i.e. ticks).
    A clock is the standard against which the intervals between events, or the durations of processes can be measured.

    A process of change may be cyclical, continuous or staged.

    The duration of any physical process obeys the Laws of Science - according to the conditions under which that change takes place.
    Identical processes, operating under identical conditions, will generate identical times.

    In an inert or totally empty system, wherein nothing is changing, time does not exist. It cannot be measured, when nothing is changing as there is nothing to measure. Introduce a clock and it is the process of change, the 'ticking’ of the clock, that generates time being measured.

    Time is generated by processes of change.

    Each and every clock, measures proper time being stationary at the origin of its frame of reference, measuring time along that clock’s worldline.

    Identical clocks, stationary within their frame of reference, operating under identical conditions, must generate time at identical rates.

    Moving clocks, which can only be moving when measured by an observer outwith the clock’s frame of reference, generate a secondary relative time dimension by their translation. The remote observer measures the coordinate time of the travelling clock: the travelling clock’s dilated time. The moving clock, being at rest in it’s own frame of reference displays that clock’s proper time, which is less than the dilated time, so the moving clock is measured to run slow by the remote observer.

    Does the fact that all clocks display proper time equate to an absolute sort of time; while the relative movement of clocks generate a relative aspect to time?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,669
    please read Carlo Rovelli The Order of Time new book out recently, it explains the current physicists view of time very well. two clocks can never be in identical conditions, that's rather basic since Einstein, and then the question of granularity within quantum time. There is no absolute time, that was Newton's idea. but you are right to see the universe as events rather than , say masses. At the quantum level that we assume pervades all the universe, everything is events and granular time and gravity are to be worked out still.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,262
    Quote Originally Posted by TyroJack View Post
    In an inert or totally empty system, wherein nothing is changing, time does not exist. It cannot be measured, when nothing is changing as there is nothing to measure. Introduce a clock and it is the process of change, the 'ticking’ of the clock, that generates time being measured.
    There are examples where nothing changes but time still passes. So I don't think you should confuse the measurement of time with its existence.

    Does the fact that all clocks display proper time equate to an absolute sort of time; while the relative movement of clocks generate a relative aspect to time?
    No, because their proper times are different.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,309
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    please read Carlo Rovelli The Order of Time new book out recently, it explains the current physicists view of time very well....
    A little older, but still contemporary, then read From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time [2010] -- Sean Carroll
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,018
    Quote Originally Posted by TyroJack View Post
    A clock is a device that counts durations of processes (i.e. ticks).
    A clock is the standard against which the intervals between events, or the durations of processes can be measured.

    A process of change may be cyclical, continuous or staged.

    The duration of any physical process obeys the Laws of Science - according to the conditions under which that change takes place.
    Identical processes, operating under identical conditions, will generate identical times.

    In an inert or totally empty system, wherein nothing is changing, time does not exist. It cannot be measured, when nothing is changing as there is nothing to measure. Introduce a clock and it is the process of change, the 'ticking’ of the clock, that generates time being measured.
    What if you don't introduce a clock, but things change. What is the situation then? I mean, in your scenario.
    Time is generated by processes of change.

    Each and every clock, measures proper time being stationary at the origin of its frame of reference, measuring time along that clock’s worldline.

    Identical clocks, stationary within their frame of reference, operating under identical conditions, must generate time at identical rates.

    Moving clocks, which can only be moving when measured by an observer outwith the clock’s frame of reference, generate a secondary relative time dimension by their translation. The remote observer measures the coordinate time of the travelling clock: the travelling clock’s dilated time. The moving clock, being at rest in it’s own frame of reference displays that clock’s proper time, which is less than the dilated time, so the moving clock is measured to run slow by the remote observer.

    Does the fact that all clocks display proper time equate to an absolute sort of time; while the relative movement of clocks generate a relative aspect to time?
    Why just one other relative time? Why not many?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There are examples where nothing changes but time still passes.
    How?
    I'm just curious. Could you give an example?

    -- Dennis
    Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. - Niels Bohr

    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit

    Hint: this is at heart a scientific forum, and underneath the fooling around there are some diamond-hard minds hanging about, ready to tear you to shreads. -- Mike Alexander

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,041
    Quote Originally Posted by TyroJack View Post
    Does the fact that all clocks display proper time equate to an absolute sort of time; while the relative movement of clocks generate a relative aspect to time?
    Are you presenting an ATM theory of some sort or are you just asking a question? If it's the latter, the Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers forum is the place for that, as long as you don't attempt to argue the mainstreams answers given on an ATM basis.

    If you are presenting an ATM theory, you need to be more clear about what it is and how it differs from your previously closed thread regard clocks and time. Please report this post to clarify your intent. Thread closed pending that.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •