Time express as matter-change speculation

[Randolpin]

I already posted this idea before but I want to share it in this speculation forrum to find it's flaws if there is any or in other words accept critics so that I am able to further develop this idea.

So now the idea behind this is that, what we experience as time is actually the change of matter in this space-time reality. What we commonly notice about time is actually the changes that matter had undergone.Time is my idea is merely a measurement of that change in matter in this space-time reality which we are part of.

 

To summarize this idea, here is the formula:

 

Time= change of matter

 

Time here represents the measure of how much change the matter had undergone.

 

Now thi idea would simplify the view of the problem of the arrow of time by viewing it into the act of change happening in the matter. By this idea, the arrow time is somewhat cause by some underlying principle behind the process of change of the matter.

 

By the way, this is only my speculation or my reasoning about time. I'm not introducing theory or hypothesis here. Just an speculation. Thank you..

[Phi for All]

Matter is changed in many ways. If we use only time, there will be an unexplained difference in (for instance) rocks that are underwater, and rocks that are sealed in a cave, and the same kind of rocks above ground subject to weathering.

 

Are you also saying that time doesn't exist in a vacuum?

[quickquestion]

The idea that matter is changing, is different than matter is moving.

Matter-moving theory means that particles are simply moving.

Matter-change theories imply a build up of aether, creating a congested aether our senses can detect as hard-particles. Thus a particle is not really the same, but a entity inside of a stream.

[Randolpin]

Matter is changed in many ways. If we use only time, there will be an unexplained difference in (for instance) rocks that are underwater, and rocks that are sealed in a cave, and the same kind of rocks above ground subject to weathering.

 

Are you also saying that time doesn't exist in a vacuum?

Rocks in different location have commonality. They are in this space-time reality & undergo change so still there is time for them particularly forward movement of time.

 

With regards to your second question, it might be as long as there is no matter only empty space so time doesn't exist. Kindly look again the formula.

[Mordred]

Matter applies only to fermionic particles via the Pauli Exclusion principle. Time still passes for bosons as well which isn't considered as matter.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

Kindly look again the formula.

 

My questions are based on your formula, which doesn't explain what happens to the same rocks in the same time under different conditions. Time is a temporal coordinate, but if I change the spatial coordinates of the rocks within the same time coordinates, the changes in matter will be different, and unaccountable using your formula.

 

Your formula also requires matter to change in order to have time at all, and that's backwards. Time allows change.

[Mordred]

Time allows change.

Key added note "any change" so how can you restrict time to simply matter?

Edited April 22, 2017 by Mordred

[studiot]

All this begets the basic question why is change in any guise needed?

 

Surely it is a valid (experimental) result to report 'no change for 75 years' ?

 

Matter and other observables endure or not as the case may be.

[swansont]

I already posted this idea before but I want to share it in this speculation forrum to find it's flaws if there is any or in other words accept critics so that I am able to further develop this idea.

So now the idea behind this is that, what we experience as time is actually the change of matter in this space-time reality. What we commonly notice about time is actually the changes that matter had undergone.Time is my idea is merely a measurement of that change in matter in this space-time reality which we are part of.

To summarize this idea, here is the formula:

Time= change of matter

Time here represents the measure of how much change the matter had undergone.

Now thi idea would simplify the view of the problem of the arrow of time by viewing it into the act of change happening in the matter. By this idea, the arrow time is somewhat cause by some underlying principle behind the process of change of the matter.

By the way, this is only my speculation or my reasoning about time. I'm not introducing theory or hypothesis here. Just an speculation. Thank you..

So if I have samples of Rb-87 and K-37 side by side, they won't experience the same time? The former has a half life of around 50 billion years, while the latter's is just over a second. One will undergo much more change than the other.

[Randolpin]

To better understand the idea of time , I just want you to think on comparison.

First, we all know that our clocks (common) or watches measure the time of the day. It meaures the movement of the earth and the heavenly bodies. Those are the bases for the measurement of clocks and watches. Secondly, a scientist measure the radioactivity of uranium. That scientist should not use the clocks that being use to measure the day but instead, he should use a special clock for measuring the amount of radioactivity that happens to that uranium. The amount of change of the movement of the earth and other heavenly bodies that is being use to measure the time of the day is different from the amount of change of the uranium. In other words, they have different times. We commonly mistaken because we use the clocks for measuring the day to the radioactivity of uranium. For me base on matter-change idea, it should not.

 

By the way, I just want to classify change in 2 forms, namely:

1. Cyclic change;

2. Continous change

 

When we say cyclic change, it is the measurement of time base on the movements of the earth & other heavenly bodies while continous change just like for example radioactivity and the changes took place in plants and animals from birth to death in a continuous manner and many more.

[Manticore]

So I should use a different clock for the time I waste reading gibberish as opposed to the one I use when I'm getting something done?

[Randolpin]

Time express in G.R as the 4th dimension is the amount of matter-change.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Randolpin

[Randolpin]

So I should use a different clock for the time I waste reading gibberish as opposed to the one I use when I'm getting something done?

The idea is that there are different amount of change a matter undergone. Plastic for example slowly change compared to example pplants that's why they have different time measurement.

[studiot]

This is a short thread, did you not read all the replies to your question?

 

I ask because my post#8 has received no reply.

[Randolpin]

All this begets the basic question why is change in any guise needed?

 

Surely it is a valid (experimental) result to report 'no change for 75 years' ?

 

Matter and other observables endure or not as the case may be.

The answer is in my post # 10

[studiot]

I'm sorry I can't see any reference to a lack of change in your post#10.

[swansont]

To better understand the idea of time , I just want you to think on comparison.

First, we all know that our clocks (common) or watches measure the time of the day. It meaures the movement of the earth and the heavenly bodies. Those are the bases for the measurement of clocks and watches. Secondly, a scientist measure the radioactivity of uranium. That scientist should not use the clocks that being use to measure the day but instead, he should use a special clock for measuring the amount of radioactivity that happens to that uranium. The amount of change of the movement of the earth and other heavenly bodies that is being use to measure the time of the day is different from the amount of change of the uranium. In other words, they have different times. We commonly mistaken because we use the clocks for measuring the day to the radioactivity of uranium. For me base on matter-change idea, it should not.

By the way, I just want to classify change in 2 forms, namely:

1. Cyclic change;

2. Continous change

When we say cyclic change, it is the measurement of time base on the movements of the earth & other heavenly bodies while continous change just like for example radioactivity and the changes took place in plants and animals from birth to death in a continuous manner and many more.

Why do clocks based on different "changes" agree? Cs clocks oscillate at around 9.2 GHz, Rb at 6.8 GHz and H at 1.4 GHz. And yet they give the same time. They also agree with pendulum clocks and the earth's rotation (accounting for known precision issues), since we didn't want to redefine everything when we changed the definition of the second.

[Manticore]

I said: So I should use a different clock for the time I waste reading gibberish as opposed to the one I use when I'm getting something done?

 

The idea is that there are different amount of change a matter undergone. Plastic for example slowly change compared to example pplants that's why they have different time measurement.

 

You appear to have completely missed the point.

[Randolpin]

Why do clocks based on different "changes" agree? Cs clocks oscillate at around 9.2 GHz, Rb at 6.8 GHz and H at 1.4 GHz. And yet they give the same time. They also agree with pendulum clocks and the earth's rotation (accounting for known precision issues), since we didn't want to redefine everything when we changed the definition of the second.

 

Does the oscillations of those elements pertains to change? Does these elements have the same rate of change? What I really mean is the rate of change that clocks should measure.

For example, an ice cube changes quickly from solid to liquid. It's rate of change is faster. It changes in a short period of time. Compared to for example, plastic.The rate of change of plastic is slow. It takes years. By this, we can infer that they have different amount of change, thus, different time measurement.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Randolpin

[Mordred]

Now that argument makes no sense

[Manticore]

'It's not even wrong.'

[swansont]

Does the oscillations of those elements pertains to change? Does these elements have the same rate of change? What I really mean is the rate of change that clocks should measure.

 

For example, an ice cube changes quickly from solid to liquid. It's rate of change is faster. It changes in a short period of time. Compared to for example, plastic.The rate of change of plastic is slow. It takes years. By this, we can infer that they have different amount of change, thus, different time measurement.

 

They are oscillations between different states of the atom. As I posted, the frequencies are different.

[goldglow]

 

 

For example, an ice cube changes quickly from solid to liquid. It's rate of change is faster. It changes in a short period of time. Compared to for example, plastic.The rate of change of plastic is slow. It takes years. By this, we can infer that they have different amount of change, thus, different time measurement.

I don't think you can say this is a different time measurement for ice-cubes and plastic ,Randolpin: yes, plastic may last longer than ice-cubes, but a second for the plastic is a second for the ice-cubes too. The plastic just exists for more seconds than the ice-cubes.

[Randolpin]

I don't think you can say this is a different time measurement for ice-cubes and plastic ,Randolpin: yes, plastic may last longer than ice-cubes, but a second for the plastic is a second for the ice-cubes too. The plastic just exists for more seconds than the ice-cubes.

 

I want to clarify that time is just a measure or a meter. Because it seems to me that it only measures the amount of change. Therefore, base on your explanation above, what we experience as time is actually the different changes that the matter of this universe undergo. Yes, it's obvious that they start in the same seconds therefore by this fact,time is somewhat like a tape measure.Like a tape measure, time is use to measure the different changes of different matter in this universe.So this gives me the impression that time is not an entity or a thing that exist. It is only an abstract meter for measuring changes of matter. Now I want to ask or clarify, why Einstein treat time as a dimension or somewhat a thing that exist?

[Strange]

Now I want to ask or clarify, why Einstein treat time as a dimension or somewhat a thing that exist?

 

 

Because that is how he produced a working model. In other words, a model that matches the evidence.