magpies Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I think the point where time gets speed is when a being with an ability to notice it does so. If you can see/hear/feel 1,000,000 different things in one rotation of a clock arm you will have a different sense for time as someone who can see only... 10 different things in the same amount of time. The human brain works at a certain speed I forget what it is but experiments have been done to try and "over clock" a human brain and I just wonder what it would be like? Iv had times in my life where I could count 200 seconds or so I thought in under 60 seconds so mby I do know what its like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gokul.er137 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Well, I am new to the form. I joined because I want to learn new things. Hope you people help me with my endeavour. From ajb's post I have an idea of where this post is going. The 0/infinity came about probably after using the equations of mass increase, time dilation and length contraction for photons. Since their rest mass is zero, things become 0/infinity. But again that is exactly why the equations are not applicable to photons. Or any other boson for that matter. Because all of them travel at the speed of light. Einstein's special relativity only defined the change in space-time on a relative basis as a "mass" tends to the speed of light. Not for massless particles at the speed of light. That is for quantum mechanics to deal with . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Or any other boson for that matter. Because all of them travel at the speed of light. Massless bosons (and fermions) you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gokul.er137 Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 yeah. sorry. that's what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Physman Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 time does not have a speed although if it were to 'move' it would have to do so faster than light for obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matronics Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I've heard that time has a speed. Some think that time speeds up, rather than slowing down, when you travel at the speed of light. It's just that traveling creates the illusion that time slows down. I also think that Einstein is wrong when he said, "When an object moves, it mass gains". I've ran and not gained weight. A bowling ball would not travel down the alley and gain mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 If you could measure mass to a high enough degree you would find that it does increase. For realistic measurements you need to be going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light and unless you're The Flash this is probably not the case. Time dilation isn't any kind of illusion. Two measurements of the same thing can differ and both measurements can be accurate for their respective frames of reference. Probably the best way to experiment with this concept: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I've heard that time has a speed. Some think that time speeds up, rather than slowing down, when you travel at the speed of light. It's just that traveling creates the illusion that time slows down. Who are these "some"? Objects with mass can't travel at c, so this conjecture is moot. I also think that Einstein is wrong when he said, "When an object moves, it mass gains". I've ran and not gained weight. A bowling ball would not travel down the alley and gain mass. Einstein never claimed it, and those that do are introducing a new definition of mass known as relativistic mass. The equations normally used in physics use rest mass (or invariant mass), and kinetic energy is a separate energy term in the equations. If you could measure mass to a high enough degree you would find that it does increase. For realistic measurements you need to be going an appreciable fraction of the speed of light and unless you're The Flash this is probably not the case. But (practically) nobody doing such experiments uses that definition. They measure the kinetic energy and use rest mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I've heard that time has a speed. I've heard that length has a flavour. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I've heard that length has a flavour. I've heard it tastes charm. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 I've heard it tastes charm. Really? I've heard it tastes strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 (edited) Speed is defined by units of distance divided by units of time. It is the number of meters you travel in one second. m/s The "speed" of time (wrong word as mentioned above) would be the reverse of speed. It would be defined as units of time divided by units of distance. It would be the number of seconds you "travel" (you spend) in one meter. s/m But I am not really sure if that means something physically. ---------------------------- A quick google search (seconds divided by meter) does not return anything corresponding. Edited November 5, 2014 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 It's a colloquial expression. Time doesn't physically move. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 It's a colloquial expression. Time doesn't physically move. You are correct. Nobody speaks about the speed of space neither Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Really? I've heard it tastes strange. Only one way to find out. Bottoms up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 5, 2014 Share Posted November 5, 2014 Only one way to find out. Bottoms up! You're the top. I'm down with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorham Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Couldn't you say that the speed of time is number of seconds per 'base second', where a 'base second' is a second on a clock that has no velocity and is not near a large mass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Couldn't you say that the speed of time is number of seconds per 'base second', where a 'base second' is a second on a clock that has no velocity and is not near a large mass? No velocity according to who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorham Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 No velocity according to who? Not relative velocity, but absolute velocity, that is, the clock isn't moving at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Not relative velocity, but absolute velocity, that is, the clock isn't moving at all. There's no such thing as absolute velocity. That's the whole point of relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorham Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 There's no such thing as absolute velocity. That's the whole point of relativity. I'm using the wrong word. What I mean is that the clock has no kinetic energy. Basically the idea is that time speed is the duration of a second second relative to a the second of a clock that experiences no time dilation. The clock must therefore have no kinetic energy and must not be close to a large mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I'm using the wrong word. What I mean is that the clock has no kinetic energy. Basically the idea is that time speed is the duration of a second second relative to a the second of a clock that experiences no time dilation. The clock must therefore have no kinetic energy and must not be close to a large mass. No kinetic energy according to who? No time dilation according to who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorham Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 (edited) No kinetic energy according to who? No time dilation according to who? According to the mechanisms that make movement and time dilation possible. Edited November 6, 2014 by Thorham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 According to the mechanisms that make movement and time dilation possible. I don't know what "mechanisms" you're referring to, or how that answers either of my questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorham Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I don't know what "mechanisms" you're referring to, or how that answers either of my questions. If what I mean by 'has no velocity' or 'has no kinetic energy' still isn't clear, then sorry, but I can't explain it any more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now