DNR

On 1/20/2020 at 2:52 PM, dimreepr said:

I hope you're being sarcastic.

No, never. If you so feel; I apologise. It is nowhere in my nature to be sarcastic. More so, I am not a physicist and just trying to learn some physics. So how could I be sarcastic towards a professional physicist.

Sorry again.

Thanks

18 hours ago, iNow said:

Probably, The Tell-Tale Heart... or, Hickory Dickery Dock when they’re tired. 

Thanks.

17 hours ago, Conjurer said:

The reason why I believe it actually does age is because I was able to solve the Light Clock problem in Minkowski spacetime to get the proper time equation.  

In the proof, time dilates, because the speed of light is constant.  Under the constraint of having to form a right triangle, the values of the other variables have to be altered, when considering distance as ct.

Then there is a sort of mechanical connection between the sides of the triangle that force the time variables to change based on what the time variables are on the other side of the right triangle, in order for it to remain a right triangle.  It comes from it being treated as a sort of rigid body that has to make connections to form an object or right triangle.

An observer on a space ship traveling close to the speed of light would observe light to travel straight up and down a distance ct'.  They are in a different frame of reference, so their time is t'.  An observer at rest would measure the light clock to send a beam at an angle a distance of ct.  The ship would travel a distance of vt.

(ct')^2 + (vt)^2 = (ct)^2

c^2t'^2 = c^2t^2 - v^2t^2

c^2t'^2 = c^2t^2 (1 - v^2/c^2)

ct' = ct sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

t' = t sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2)

Then you have t' = tau, and the light clock problem has been solved in Minkowski Spacetime.  Previously, that was the only reason why relativity wasn't seen to be real or a possibility that a biological entity would not age, because no one was able to solve this problem.  Then I solved it, so there should be no other reason why it shouldn't, that I know of.  It makes it clear that it is actually a property of spacetime itself.  

Thanks for your educating reply.

13 hours ago, MigL said:

Actually ( to be pedantic to a fault ), what the vast majority of existing clocks read, are the oscillations of a quartz crystal with an applied voltage.
This thread is just a variation of the "what is time ?" threads we usually encounter.

Thanks. Yes, of course. This thread is certainly about what is time.

On 12/22/2019 at 4:22 PM, swansont said:

Can I move some arbitrary distance in a featureless dimension? You seem to be suggesting I can’t, by invoking the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

 

In physics, time is not a force that causes things to happen.

Many thanks for your comment and sorry for delayed response.  Of course this is my personal argument. But probably there is nothing incredulous. May be I was unable to state my point of view clearly. 

Of course, Time is not a force. I am simply trying to understand what is Time by analysing it from different angles.

Thanks for your comments.

On 12/22/2019 at 5:18 PM, studiot said:

 

Although not completely correct in your conclusions, you seem to have stumbled on an important aspect of the difference between space and time and this is a good way to describe it.

The point abut the length of the tree comapred to the length of the metre rul you mentioned earlier is embodied in some theory known as the Relativity of Simultaneity.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=i6T_Xc-XMY-qUMTZkYgH&q=Relativity+of+Simultaneity.&oq=Relativity+of+Simultaneity.&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30l10.648.648..1674...0.0..0.186.186.0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.GXAhxkIHwvs&ved=0ahUKEwiPiZnk4MnmAhUPFRQKHcRsBHEQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

When comparing an object. either to a measuring stick standard or directly to a coordinate framework itself,  to measure its 'length' you have to have this concept so that you compare both ends of the object measured at the 'same time'.

I know of no corresponding requirement to compare the readings on two clocks in the 'same space', although you may have to adjust (transform) the framework to a common base.

 

So +1 for encouragement.

Many thanks for the educating comment. I am not a physicist, this is a big handicap for me - I know. To some extent, I understand Relativity of simultaneity.

However, I do think that reading of clocks can be compared only in same space (same height from a body) and same speed. Different heights and different speeds might give different readings from a clock, if I am not wrong.  Anyway, relativity is not an issue here.  I am simply trying to analyse time from different angles, to the extent I can do. I shall be more obliged to learn where I am not correct in my conclusions. Kindly specify.

Thanks and regards.

Let us ask the question, “What does a measuring tape read?” Is there any invisible length in the sky that it measures? Does it make any sense if we say that it is measuring an invisible spatial dimension of space? I think these answers hardly make a good sense. In my view, a more sensible answer will be that a measuring tape first of all reads its own length- its longest spatial extension. It tells that it is a meter long. It also tells that a meter- a man-made unit of length- is this much long. Then, by comparison, it measures the lengths of other objects too. After all, a measuring tape is just like any other object, any other tape; the only difference is that it is graduated, or marked (according to a man-made standard) to read its spatial extension.

Similar explanation can be given for a clock. A clock too is like any other object that gets old every moment- that is, extends in its fourth dimension. Other objects too get old every moment but are generally not marked to measure their extension into their fourth dimension (though there are many that have such markings, like a developing embryo or a beating heart, albeit not very precise). A clock has been marked (according to some man-made standard) to measure and read its extension into its fourth dimension. It seems that, like a measuring tape, it too does not measure any invisible fourth dimension of space, any invisible time. Rather, it measures its extension into its own fourth dimension (its aging). In a simpler term, a clock measures and reads its own aging. Then, by comparison, it reads the aging of other objects.

Now suppose, there is a growing tree, increasing in height (say length) by a meter every year. Is its length (the spatial dimension) responsible for its growth? Or its growth is responsible for its length? Certainly, the latter statement is true, not the former. The tree’s growth is responsible for its length (a spatial dimension). The spatial dimension of the tree is thus not the cause but the effect. It is not a requirement but an acquirement.

Now we see that, along with its length, the tree is also gaining ‘age’. Similar question can be asked for its age too. Is age (the fourth dimension) of the tree responsible for its growth? Or its growth is responsible for its age? Naturally, its growth is responsible for its age. Thus, age, or the fourth dimension too is not the cause but the effect. Fourth dimension (say, time) is, therefore, not a requirement for aging, but is an acquirement for aging. Time seems to be the fourth dimension of objects, a measurement of their aging.

Thus, in my view, a clock measures its own aging.

Dear Sir

First of all I express my deepest apology for not visiting the site and not replying to your comment for such a long time. It was due to some personal unavoidable reasons. Sorry, once again.

Then I express my apology for linking my blog with my post as I did not know it is unethical.

Now I sincerely thank you for going through my post and making  such an educating comment. I shall now post my views directly on this page.

I know I am not saying anything new about time. Many people have said the same, including you. But still,  time remains an enigma. The reality of time still swings between 'Timelessness' and 'Time as an entity'. Therefore, I think we should keep on discussing the matter and trying to explain it from different angles.

Regards

Dayalanand

Hello everybody.

I am a student of biology. But for the last few years, I have been studying Time. I have started a blog page to share my personal views about Time. Here is the link to my blog. I humbly request you all to see it and post your critical comments.

LINK REMOVED

Thanks.