Jump to content
• Sign Up

# What do our clocks read?

## Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

The stance here is that the biological entity do age.

Note: I disagree, but who cares?

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.

Edited by Conjurer

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
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.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DNR said:

Thanks for your educating reply.

I hope you're being sarcastic.

Edited by dimreepr

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
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

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DNR said:

I am not a physicist and just trying to learn some physics. So how could I be sarcastic towards a professional physicist.

It was hoped you were being sarcastic.  The person you thanked for the "educating reply" has shown over and over that he is completely ignorant of physics.  His reply was gibberish.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DNR said:

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

If you want to learn some physics, look to the mods and resident experts, not the likes of me or him.

Edited by dimreepr

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 8:22 AM, swansont said:

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

What would you say that time is in the realm of physics?

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 1:16 PM, DNR said:

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.

Time and space [as we know them] evolved at t+10-43 seconds.

Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers, and can be in effect interchangeable. Without  space, there is no time, without time their is no space. A union of the two [spacetime] follows from the fact that "ç" is invariant and of course gravity is described by the warping/curving/twisting of this spacetime.

Edited by beecee

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dad said:

What would you say that time is in the realm of physics?

A dimension.

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, swansont said:

A dimension.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

A dimension.

OK, but that is something arbitrarily set. Time is not like length. Science does not know what time itself is.

Edited by dad

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
Just now, dad said:

OK, but that is something arbitrarily set.

How is it arbitrary?

Just now, dad said:

Time is not like length.

No? Not like it at all?

#### Share this post

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dad said:

OK, but that is something arbitrarily set. Time is not like length. Science does not know what time itself is.

Time is a temporal dimension, length is a spatial one. Both add degrees of freedom to the way things move in the universe.

## 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 account

## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• Create New...

## Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.