Time v its measurement

[asprung]

Time, as I contemplate it, is the matainence of the present. If it is to be defined in terms of a dimension I would define it as one, other than length width and height that spaces events. I would propose that it marches on at steady pace and only the clocks that measure it vary with velocity and acceleration. Thus the clocks do not measure time running at a slower rate but slower clocks measure time running at a constant rate. This would seem evidenced by the fact that observers in different time frames could simultaneously view an event as it occurred and that observers from different time frames could return together in the present. Thus so to speak it is the clocks that have the nose of wax. This has been postulated as being caused by a slowing effect of velocity on atomic or molecular motion. This also avoids the problem of a slower time frame falling into the past of a faster one.

[swansont]

observers in different time frames could simultaneously view an event as it occurred

 

They could, but they generally don't.

[asprung]

Given an adjustment for signal travel I would think they would.

[iNow]

You can think that, but as swansont already stated they generally do not.

[GDG]

Time, as I contemplate it, is the matainence of the present. If it is to be defined in terms of a dimension I would define it as one, other than length width and height that spaces events. I would propose that it marches on at steady pace and only the clocks that measure it vary with velocity and acceleration. Thus the clocks do not measure time running at a slower rate but slower clocks measure time running at a constant rate. This would seem evidenced by the fact that observers in different time frames could simultaneously view an event as it occurred and that observers from different time frames could return together in the present. Thus so to speak it is the clocks that have the nose of wax. This has been postulated as being caused by a slowing effect of velocity on atomic or molecular motion. This also avoids the problem of a slower time frame falling into the past of a faster one.

 

Unfortunately, that is completely contrary to Relativity. Not that Relativity is unassailable, but you'll have to show where the equations are wrong before anyone will take this seriously.

[asprung]

I was assuming that they both were looking to view the event.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What is completly contrary to relativity and what equations must be shown to be completly wrong?

[swansont]

I was assuming that they both were looking to view the event.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What is completly contrary to relativity and what equations must be shown to be completly wrong?

 

Your idea of simultaneity, as you've previously expressed it, is not how it is defined in relativity. There really can be no intelligent discussion of the subject if you insist on using nonstandard definitions, because we will spend all of our effort untangling semantical issues.

 

The equations to disprove are the relativistic equations of motion.

[iNow]

asprung - I'm not sure if I've shared this demonstration with you previously (I've shared similar ones, but I'm pretty sure not this one), but it supplements swansonts point about the simultaneity concept rather well.

 

 

http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/Simultaneity.html

 

 

 

It truly gets to the heart of the misunderstandings with which everyone has been trying to assist you.

[NowThatWeKnow]

http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/Simultaneity.html

 

It truly gets to the heart of the misunderstandings with which everyone has been trying to assist you.

 

Excellent link and got a bookmark. While relativistic speed may show the "simultaneity concept rather well", Here on Planet Earth we have a huge variable frame caused by general relativity. We don't let that stop us from defining simultaneous events. At what point does time dilatation or length contraction cause a problem in defining simultaneous? Could we say that when the front of the train passed the end of the dock my right foot hit the ground and call it close enough?

[iNow]

Interesting question. You seem to be asking more about the acceptable limits of error... What range of error is okay, and what range is too much. That's personal opinion really, and IMO would depend on context and circumstance.

 

However, the larger point is that two events really aren't simultaneous. Our limited human perception only makes them appear so. Also, to be fair to you NTWK, having read your posts here at SFN, I'm pretty confident that you understand these topics much more fully than I do.

[NowThatWeKnow]

iNow, It would seem that true simultaneity could only happen in the same or identical frames. Since that is almost impossible, a range of error is necessary to use the word. It seems that asprung allows for more error then most and may not be that far off, at least in his mind.

 

When I read your post I see you well ahead of me in most areas of physics.

Edit - Plus, Swansont and Martin correct my post often and yours rarely.

Edited April 11, 2009 by NowThatWeKnow

[swansont]

iNow, It would seem that true simultaneity could only happen in the same or identical frames. Since that is almost impossible, a range of error is necessary to use the word. It seems that asprung allows for more error then most and may not be that far off, at least in his mind.

 

When I read your post I see you well ahead of me in most areas of physics.

Edit - Plus, Swansont and Martin correct my post often and yours rarely.

 

Remember that we tend to idealize conditions in these problems, ignoring many real-world complications. Spacetime is flat, clocks are perfect, etc. asprung is not focusing on those issues, AFAICT. It appears to be an issue of imposing an absolute reference frame, which does not exist.

[asprung]

The definition of symultaneity is not relevent to the point I am trying to present, which is that the present marches on for both observers to when about the event occurs though their clocks are vastly diffrent.

[NowThatWeKnow]

The definition of symultaneity is not relevent to the point I am trying to present, which is that the present marches on for both observers to when about the event occurs though their clocks are vastly diffrent.

 

I can relate to what you are saying I think. At any point of time in one frame there is a simultaneous event happening in other frames, even if we do not observe it. One problem would be that a one second event in one frame may be a 10 second event in another frame making it unable to happen at the same time. It seems you would have to use a very high resolution of time and then just call it close enough.

[asprung]

Put another way, my proposal is that time, defined as a demension, spacing events, will not be distorted by velocity or acceleration; only the insturments measuring it will. There would have to be some segeration between time and its units of measurment.

[swansont]

Put another way, my proposal is that time, defined as a demension, spacing events, will not be distorted by velocity or acceleration; only the insturments measuring it will. There would have to be some segeration between time and its units of measurment.

 

And you need to come up with a framework for this alternate definition and provide evidence that it works this way. Since relativity works for any time measurement that has been tested (clocks, radioactive decay), is an integral part of electrodynamics, and the effects of relativity have to be incorporated to explain parts of physics that are insanely well confirmed, you have an uphill battle ahead of you.

[NowThatWeKnow]

... my proposal is that time, defined as a demension, spacing events, will not be distorted by velocity or acceleration; only the insturments measuring it will...

 

I can not see one without the other so you are on your own. As mentioned, you have an "uphill battle".

[asprung]

Clocks radioactivedecay etc. are all in effect insturments for measuring time,and time itself has only been expressed in units of measurment. I conceive of time,as I have said, as a dimension spaceing events and the force maintaining the present. I am more interested in learning what must be incorrect than I am in an up hill battle. Maybe I should call time something else but you don't seem to like "the prgression of "now" ".

[swansont]

Clocks radioactivedecay etc. are all in effect insturments for measuring time,and time itself has only been expressed in units of measurment. I conceive of time,as I have said, as a dimension spaceing events and the force maintaining the present. I am more interested in learning what must be incorrect than I am in an up hill battle. Maybe I should call time something else but you don't seem to like "the prgression of "now" ".

 

Because you've never defined what it means.

 

I think you'll find that all devices that are affected by time become "instruments for measuring time," so it becomes a rather disingenuous distinction to differentiate time and the instrument that measures it.

[asprung]

I think that I have many times defined “the progression of “now” “.According to my theory the universe only exists “now’ and “nows” progression is the succession of past “nows’ becoming the present “now’.It is in effect the maintaining of the present. I believe that “now” or the present is common to all time frames.

If we were to assume the space twin in the year 2000 and the earth twin in the year 2010 and a blast to occur half way between them which they could both see, they would both observe the blast when it occured though their clocks and calendars would show vastly different times and dates. This to me indicates that different time frames share the same “now’.

If its velocity would cause a slowing of more than its measuring instruments then the space twin would find himself in the earth twins past, to me an impossible situation.

I believe that the above presents a logical argument as to why the velocity only slows the measuring instruments, and why the progression of “now” is common to all time frames

[granpa]

what you are describing sounds like the andromeda paradox.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=on&as_qdr=all&q=+site:www.physicsforums.com+andromeda+paradox

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk-Putnam_Argument

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

remember, reality doesnt change because you change velocity. only your perspective changes.

Edited April 13, 2009 by granpa
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

I think that I have many times defined “the progression of “now” “.According to my theory the universe only exists “now’ and “nows” progression is the succession of past “nows’ becoming the present “now’.It is in effect the maintaining of the present. I believe that “now” or the present is common to all time frames.

 

IOW, it's always now, which is a tautology. Not a definition.

[asprung]

It is the flow of time that keeps us in the present or "now' and put simply I propose that this flow is not distorted by velocity as are the clocks in specfic time frames. We can either agree or disagree that "now" is and remains common to all time frames. All time frames will allways experence the same "now".

[swansont]

It is the flow of time that keeps us in the present or "now' and put simply I propose that this flow is not distorted by velocity as are the clocks in specfic time frames. We can either agree or disagree that "now" is and remains common to all time frames. All time frames will allways experence the same "now".

 

What do you mean by 'All time frames will allways[sic] experence the same "now"'? What are the implications of this to measurements? What kind of measurements can we make?

[granpa]

It is the flow of time that keeps us in the present or "now' and put simply I propose that this flow is not distorted by velocity as are the clocks in specfic time frames. We can either agree or disagree that "now" is and remains common to all time frames. All time frames will allways experence the same "now".

all you are saying is that there is an absolute 'now'. absolute time is not a new idea. nor is the andromeda paradox.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

What do you mean by 'All time frames will allways[sic] experence the same "now"'? What are the implications of this to measurements? What kind of measurements can we make?

if it turns out that quantum entanglement allows us to communicate instantly over any distance (but thats another whole thread) then we would be able to establish a universal 'now'. other than that there is of course no measurement that we can make to estiblish a universal 'now'.