Time has a physical representation, when is time represented beyond the physical? By this i mean, time is represented by water clock, sand clock, the movement of hand in watch. time is physical change.
it is a psycholgical mistake to think that time is ‘outside space’ when time is has only its representation in space. so time ‘slowing’ down is utter nonsense.
people just move faster in relation to someone else. that person slows down in movement. but time did not slow, for there is no metaphysical time.
The whole of relativity which places time in its numerical representation is misleading and ends up with absurd results. what does it mean for time to have slowed for 2 secs? simply incomprehensible, and yet every idiot in high school swallowed it. The lie is too big for me, I can’t swallow it.
Einstein lives not by his work, but by his reputation. just like people worship Gods, philosophers, now we are worshipping this silly dead buggar just because others said he was important. He was right on one point, that humanity is a jumbo of stupidity.
well i am a student and i am curntly not bowing down to Enstein. I do find his veiws on time very interesting though.
you are right that your perseption of time dose not change. This is becasue your mind isn’t effected by gravity as much as clocks are.
“Time depends on where you are and clocks run more slowly at ground level than they do in an aircraft flying in weaker gravity high above the earth” Nigel Carlder
What sort of absurd results crop up? From what I can remember as my days as a physics student, the results of relativistic-time-related experiments have always confirmed it to a high degree of accuracy, hence the theory is still going strong.
I sense a bit of Devil’s Advocacy here. Einstein is rightly remembered as one the greatest contributors to science. Heard of the anus mirabilis? It’s true that the second half of his career was somewhat wasted, but his early work is (currently) of unquestionable merit.
If you move a clock from the bottom of the ocean to the top of a dry mountain the time will change. The clock may slow down… but don’t think of it in a ‘lesser’ sense… it simply changes.
In physics, time is nothing more than that which is measured by a clock (a very specific type of clock if you use a standardized unit system like SI, but any clock will do). Relativity says that if you have a clock and a friend who is moving with respect to you has a copy of that clock, you will observe your friend’s clock to be ticking more slowly than your own, and your friend will observe your clock to be ticking more slowly than his own. The idea of ticking more or less fast is not formed circularly with reference to time, but is merely a comparison of the number of ticks on one clock to the number of ticks on the other clock. The key is to think of time as a concept emerging from the physical system of the clock, rather than the clock being an imperfect measuring device for some system of absolute time. Relativity is then a theory explaining how one should understand observations of these physical systems called “clocks” when they are moving with respect to each other.
A good intro text on relativity is Brian Greene’s “The Elegant Universe”, which also touches on quantum mechanics and string theory if you swing that way.
but how could that happen? how could physical movement be influenced by movement?
I can understand, that if I move really fast, things appear to slow down, but they have not slowed down, just that I moved faster.
A clock run by a battery is independent of movement. if it is set to move at the same rate as the still clock, then it would move at the same rate. it is unimaginable that one could move faster just because te car goes faster.
Edit. When you move faster, you travel more distance in relation to the clock’s movement. but time did not slow down, for time does not exist but as physical clock.
Consider the standard way of graphing, that you learn in calculus. Time is the independant variable. Distance is dependant upon the speed one is moving (including acceleration) at and how long they have been moving.
Relativity just places a fixed speed (the speed of light) in the place of time as the independant variable. Time is now relative to distance and speed.
Experimental evidence backs it up.
The theory of special relativity doesn't assert anything about the nature of time other than that it is relative to one's speed and that data can be measured by it.
Take two points: A, B. Each point is graphed by the valuations assigned to the 4 dimensional variables giving a specific location in Space/Time. Now the valuations of the variables defining the location of point A compared to the valuations of the variables defining point B gives 4 relative valuations along each of the dimensional axis for A and B.
The defining values of point A, the defining values of point B, and the defining values of the relation of A to B are 3 different sets of values assigned to variables. I now observe:
TIME IS A VARIABLE.
Hence, the relative separation of A and B → along the Time axis ← is thus variable.
So if one is going lickty-split across the Universe with large movements in the 3 axis of Space … what keeps you in the Universe?
The only thing that can is a progressively smaller movement along the Time axis that will ‘curve’ the movement through Space.
You worry too much about what’s “really” happening. Don’t bother with trying to figure out what the clock is “really” doing (tell me – what does that even mean?). It’s good enough to determine what the clock will appear to be doing in whatever situations you will be observing it. This is what relativity does. It logically deduces what we must observe about clocks in relative motion if the laws of physics are to be logically consistent.
I somewhat sympathise with your concern about time “slowing down” and how there is no external “reference time” against which time can slow down. I suggest you don’t think about it that way. Think about it in terms of predictions about moving clocks – then realize that time is nothing more than the beat of a conventionally agreed-upon clock. Perhaps that will help.
One more suggestion: science is not concerned so much with the “way things are” (whatever that means) but how things will appear to us in a variety of situations. I would further submit that if you understand how something will appear in all possible situations, you in fact understand “the way it is”.
Yup, that’s generally how you express related variables.
The most groundbreaking thing that relativity did was say that time is relative rather than absolute. It’s puzzling to everyone.
It also follows that space is relative rather than absolute - that is, objects in relative motion cannot be represented as moving across a single, absolute cartesian coordinate system, but rather on relative coordinate systems. This is the best way to (attempt to) understand the strange implications of relativity.
Light moves at the same speed in every system. Therefore, if two systems are in motion, the speed of light is the same in both systems regardless of their relative speed, which means that two observers at fixed points in either system will observe events differently.
For a more illustrated explaination, I recommend that you pick up any of the numerous books on the subject.
Actually, if your goal is to unify the natural forces, it has either 10 or 26.
that means time has only a physical representation. meaning it is only a physical phenonmon. mean time is physical.
but not to me. what is relative is only dependant on human beings. what we regard as relative has no bearing on the actuality of space. how can time be even subjected to the criteria of absolute or relative is beyond me. the words themselves do not make sense.
an observer can be anything that interacts with the principles in question.
if you throw anything at close to light speed relative to your position, be it a human, a watch, a puppy dog or a rock, then it will experience almost no time from our POV. From its POV, the universe will age very quickly.
this is pure fantasy. why does it have to be relative? so if there are 2 things. an apple and orange, the apples travels at 40000 ms relative to orange, now there is no orange, but the apple is traveling at the same speak, did it stop travelling?
hm? i dont get your objection.
If there is no frame of reference, then there is no movement. Speed is a measure of the rate of change of distance between objects, and that is all.
This entails of course, if there are only two objects, and one is moving at an arbitrary speed, then BOTH objects have equal claim to that movement. The classic thought experiment is two astronaughts floating past each other: both can claim that the other is moving and that they are standing still, or that they are moving and the other is standing still.