Mitch Bass Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 time is a means to measure matter in motion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Haven't we been here before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Bass Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share Posted November 23, 2014 you say this matter has been dealt with. what was the conclusion why has the post before mine asking a question that you said hAS BEEN DEalt I stared this post in response to the post which is asking the question am I right r wrong does time have motion /\? \\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfmotat Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) you say this matter has been dealt with. what was the conclusion why has the post before mine asking a question that you said hAS BEEN DEalt I stared this post in response to the post which is asking the question am I right r wrong does time have motion /\? The thread is directly under yours in the relativity section at the moment: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29821-does-time-have-a-speed/ Whether or not time has a "speed" is essentially a question about definitions. What exactly do you mean? By any sensible definition, i.e. rate of time with respect to something else, the closest analogue I can think of would be the rate at which one clock in arbitrary motion in an arbitrary spacetime "ticks" relative to some other clock. Edited November 23, 2014 by elfmotat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 time is a means to measure matter in motion Sure it does. We can take our 3D vectors from Euclidean space and create their analogs in a 4D Minkowski space. So, instead of S=(x,y,z), we have S=(ct,x,y,z). We use the time of the rest frame of the object we are studying, so when we are talking about the speed of time, we're talking about the rate time passes according to one frame with respect to an object's rest frame. So, the four-velocity is [math]U=(\frac{dct}{d\tau}, \frac{dx}{d\tau}, \frac{dy}{d\tau}, \frac{dz}{d\tau})[/math]. So, the velocity in the time direction is given by [math]\frac{dct}{d\tau}[/math]. But the cool thing is that [math]t=\gamma\tau[/math], so the t's cancel out giving the speed of time as [math]{\gamma}c[/math]. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 24, 2014 Share Posted November 24, 2014 ! Moderator Note Discussion on whether time is discrete has been split: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86651-is-time-discrete-split-from-time-does-not-have-a-speed/ Please continue the discussion there, not here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxila Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Sure it does. We can take our 3D vectors from Euclidean space and create their analogs in a 4D Minkowski space. So, instead of S=(x,y,z), we have S=(ct,x,y,z). We use the time of the rest frame of the object we are studying, so when we are talking about the speed of time, we're talking about the rate time passes according to one frame with respect to an object's rest frame. So, the four-velocity is [math]U=(\frac{dct}{d\tau}, \frac{dx}{d\tau}, \frac{dy}{d\tau}, \frac{dz}{d\tau})[/math]. So, the velocity in the time direction is given by [math]\frac{dct}{d\tau}[/math]. But the cool thing is that [math]t=\gamma\tau[/math], so the t's cancel out giving the speed of time as [math]{\gamma}c[/math]. You've still defined the measurement of something changing position (in motion) as the OP claimed. 1 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