Thread: Accelerating Time

If light is "timeless" would a universal speed of zero cause instant decay?

Is there an equation to figure out the effect of speed on time?

Is there a way to determine universal speed? There is no way to track empty space right?

The closest I can imagine is moving in the opposite direction of the sun at the same speed it is orbiting the center of the universe. If anything other than what is expected occurs, it would show that things are not all revolving nice and neat as they appear, right?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

If light is "timeless" would a universal speed of zero cause instant decay?

Is there an equation to figure out the effect of speed on time?

Is there a way to determine universal speed? There is no way to track empty space right?

The closest I can imagine is moving in the opposite direction of the sun at the same speed it is orbiting the center of the universe. If anything other than what is expected occurs, it would show that things are not all revolving nice and neat as they appear, right?

Please define universal speed. Then I may be able to help you answer your question.

The effect of speed on time? Well, what is time? There are many definitions of time. My definition, is that time is the continued sustained interaction between atoms (factors) which produces outcomes.

If you look at Einstein's theory of relativity, it shows that nothing in the universe can go faster than the speed of light, and that time is and can be perceived in relativistic terms. Meaning without two points to refer to, one being beginning; the other, destination, there's no way to recognize that time exists. If only one thing exists, then measurement is impossible, because there's nothing to refer to to tell the distance away from something if distance is created by the amount of space between two things.

So, if this is how time and measurement work, and speed can be measured, then it is possible speed can affect time, given the definition of time denotes time as being changeable. However, if you were moving faster than light, you'd just be ahead of the light, so you're not really slowing down the interaction between light and its destination, only your perception of it.

If light is "timeless" would a universal speed of zero cause instant decay?

A universal speed (I assume you mean here a speed which everyone agrees is constant) is impossible for everything except light. This is because light is not bound by the rules of special relativity, given as it has no valid inertial frame of reference.

Since it is not bound by special relativity, I would advise you to ignore the relativistic time dilation effect for light; light is not bound by that rule. So you cannot actually say light is timeless; merely that we know nothing about what light perceives as time.

And a universal speed of zero is impossible, since every observer must measure its speed to be every time.

Also, decay implies a photon consists of something. It is not; it is pure radiation, with no object hiden within it. Neutrons, muons and other assorted particles, seeing as they contain mass, can decay; light cannot.

Is there an equation to figure out the effect of speed on time?

t' = t/ sq.root of (1-V^2/c^2) would be the equation. T' would be the measure of time which the observer moving at velocity v will measure; t is the time which an observer who considers himself at rest will measure.

However, it is not time itself that is affected; it's simply the measure of time the moving observer will measure that will change.

Is there a way to determine universal speed? There is no way to track empty space right?

Universal speed, I have already mentioned is impossible for anything except light. This is because the principle of relativity allows somebody moving with respect to another object at rest to consider himself at rest, while the object he passes can be in motion. No object in the world can say with any amount of certainty that something is definitely moving at a definite speed - except for light, of course.

As for empty space, I fail to understand what you're alluding to.

The closest I can imagine is moving in the opposite direction of the sun at the same speed it is orbiting the center of the universe. If anything other than what is expected occurs, it would show that things are not all revolving nice and neat as they appear, right?

What on earth are you talking about?

One other small note: there is no center of the universe.

Hmmm. I guess I don't know how to explain "universal speed" it is not a matter of us agreeing on what universal speed is, but a matter of not moving AT ALL, I guess in effect having no energy in momentum.

to answer some questions Mr smarty pants, you evoke the name of Einstein, but you do not know that "time is what we measure with a clock"

I'm using his train experiment as the foundation of this. Someones clock in the train moves slower than someones clock outside the train. This is relative though. Introducing a third perspective into the mess, lets use a satellite orbiting the earth, recording both clocks. To the satellite they both seem to be the same.

If two people move by eachother at equal speed, from their own perspectives it appears as though the other is moving much faster. When riding a bike the ground passess very fast, but when sitting on your porch watching someone ride a bike they do not seem to be moving that fast.

"Zero universal speed" I guess is the same as "no energy"

Is there no center of the universe? If there was a big bang wouldn't that singularity be the center of the universe?

There is no stop and there is no center of the universe. The first part is because it's impossible to answer "everything" to the question "what am I stopped relative to". Actually, that's not a very good explanation. The thing is, if you have two objects that are moving relative to each other, you can't say that one is stopped and the other is moving. From different points of view, both are stopped and both are moving.

The second is because the big bang happened everywhere, all at once. It's just that at that time, everywhere wasn't very big. The standard demonstration for this is to get a balloon, draw some stars on it, then blow it up. The stars spread out, but the center of the expansion is not part of the surface of the balloon. (This isn't exactly how it really works, but it's a good demonstration.)

Haven't we observed differences in time between shuttles and earth clocks? or is that a lie?

Are you referring to the experiment where a clock was put aboard a space shuttle and orbited the Earth once, and another clock was put on an airliner, and went across the Earth once? Yes, that experiment was indeed done.

The results showed that the clock that was in space was a fraction of a second slower than the one on Earth. But what does this mean? If the clock was in space to the point where there was no gravity, this may just signify the physical slowing of the clock due to a change in gravity, and of course clocks aren't designed to operate specifically efficiently in zero gravity.

So, I don't know what to make of it. I think there was also an experiment done on aging in space, an Astronaut in space was .00085 seconds younger than an Astronaut which stayed on Earth the exact same amount of time during the study.

So, perhaps it's a physical reaction from cells and atoms, rather than time itself. Since time can only be measured if one has two points of reference and movement, perhaps these descrepencies are just what we make them out to be, physical changes in reaction due to altered gravity.

Also remember, the time the clock tells us isn't time itself, it's just the measurements which we've created based on physical observations. If one clock is a fraction of a second slower than the other, this is only physical "after the fact" observation, really only giving us credible evidence that "something" is changing how things react in space vs. on Earth.

Except that it's not that simple. First, the scientists that did that experiment weren't idiots. They knew what kind of things could upset the experiment. They knew how the clocks in question (atomic clocks) would react to free fall. (Remember, it's not that there's no gravity in orbit, just that objects in orbit are in free fall.) In this case, an atomic clock shouldn't be effected that way by free fall. (An atomic clock measures the vibrations of an atom, something not directly effected by gravity.) Finally, after taking all such things into consideration, the difference between the two clocks was very, very close (well within experimental error) of the predictions made by general relativity.

Now, if after taking all that into account, you still want to say that this isn't supportive of GR, you're going to at least have to give a compelling reason why.

Edit: Oh yeah, and if time isn't what a clock measures, what is it? Again, if all possible observations say that the rate of time changed, what's the difference?

I'm not saying that the clock experiment doesn't support general relativity, I'm saying that there may be more than just what we're considering to this equation.

And by clocks not measuring time, I mean, not measuring time. Time isn't something we've created, clocks are. We notice time passes because we observe changes and the continuation of something started at a previous instance. Clocks don't keep track of the passage of time, but rather, what we perceive as the passage of time. Meaning, perhaps time isn't what we think it is.

Are you referring to the experiment where a clock was put aboard a space shuttle and orbited the Earth once, and another clock was put on an airliner, and went across the Earth once? Yes, that experiment was indeed done.

I must mention that this was not the only experiment intended to test the theory. There is one where clocks were placed at different positions on a tower; the one at the top was found to be moving faster than the one at the bottom.

Another experiment was done with muons. As I'm quite sure you know, muons have a very short half-life; not long enough to survive the journey through the Earth's atmosphere. Yet they do survive and land, quite frequently. The explanation was time dilation.

Hmmm. I guess I don't know how to explain "universal speed" it is not a matter of us agreeing on what universal speed is, but a matter of not moving AT ALL, I guess in effect having no energy in momentum.

Then you are talking, marcusclayman, about an absolute impossiblity. Such a thing cannot ever exist; if it did, we would still be unable to be certain if it really is not in motion because we can easily say that something moving with respect to it is still and the object is in motion.

to answer some questions Mr smarty pants, you evoke the name of Einstein, but you do not know that "time is what we measure with a clock"

tip No. 1: Don't call people names.

Secondly, what you have then isn't really a definition. If you say time is what is measured by a clock, you haven't really defined time; you've just attributed it to something else. I can say that time is speed, and a clock measures speed. Or time is distance, and a clock measures distance. I can easily say that time is the motion of pink and green bunnies; the clock, then, must measure that.

Let me give you one realistic example of why time has yet to be given a definite definition. The relationship between speed and time is, of course,



We define speed in terms of time; yet we cannot define time in terms of speed. A circular definition, to be sure, but one we have got used to.

I'm using his train experiment as the foundation of this. Someones clock in the train moves slower than someones clock outside the train. This is relative though. Introducing a third perspective into the mess, lets use a satellite orbiting the earth, recording both clocks. To the satellite they both seem to be the same.

No, they won't. You're not taking the satellite's speed into account; that will affect which clock it will take to be the one that happened first, since it too experiences time dilation.

If two people move by eachother at equal speed, from their own perspectives it appears as though the other is moving much faster. When riding a bike the ground passess very fast, but when sitting on your porch watching someone ride a bike they do not seem to be moving that fast.

If two people are moving at the same speed, it does NOT appear as if the other is moving much faster. Try running alongside a bicycle at the same speed as you are; you definitely won't say that it is moving much faster than you are. The speed will appear different if you are not moving at the same speed, however.

And the reason the bike doesn't seem to be moving that fast is simply that you are far away from it. Come nearer, and the bike seems to speed up. This Newtonian relativism, I must mention; based on whather you are moving away or close to it, your measure of their speed changes likewise.

"Zero universal speed" I guess is the same as "no energy"

Again, we speak of impossibilities. Nothing in tre universe can be said to have absolutely no energy; if it did, it would be at 0 Kelvin, the scale used for heat, which is something forbidden by the laws of science.

"If you say time is what is measured by a clock, you haven't really defined time; you've just attributed it to something else. I can say that time is speed, and a clock measures speed. Or time is distance, and a clock measures distance."


I didn't say "time is a clock" I've never even thought that before but I see how a clock could be used as a symbol of time, I still wouldn't think the two are the same. I see what you are trying to say but I don't agree. Also maybe there is a way of saying it differently instead of claiming that I said/meant/implied something that I surely did not. If you did that on purpose I think what you did is called a lie, though I understand if you did not, saying what you mean can be difficult sometimes.

A meter-stick measures meters, it is a meter long, but it is not a meter. A meter is an idea, a meter-stick is a phisical thing.

I said, the idea "time" can be measured with a phisical thing "clock"

you can atribute it to something else, but it would be wrong

time is time, distance is distance and speed is speed.

A clock is used to measure time.
A ruler is used to measure distance
Speed is distance over time.

there is no reason to think that time, distance and speed are the same thing, I guess they could be, but we should change our definitions don't you think?

a scale is used to measure mass
a tube is used to measure volume
density is mass over volume(or the other way around, I forgot)

you can't measure volume with a scale, or density with a tube, you also can't measure time with a ruler. You can't measure speed with a clock or a ruler, you need both.



"You're not taking the satellite's speed into account; that will affect which clock"

It effects both clocks equally. If the train is moving 100 miles an hour east, the satelite would move 50 miles an hour east. The two clocks from the satelite would appear to be moving the same? While from the person standing still the satelites would be moving a little bit slower, and the train would be twice as more slow. Is this how it works? of course, this is not a sound example, because it is only considering two demensions of motion, but it is still practical to discuss the effects.


whatever, i guess i just need to do my own research if I ever hope to understand.. Thanks for putting up with me

Originally Posted by RosenNoir

I'm not saying that the clock experiment doesn't support general relativity, I'm saying that there may be more than just what we're considering to this equation.

And by clocks not measuring time, I mean, not measuring time. Time isn't something we've created, clocks are. We notice time passes because we observe changes and the continuation of something started at a previous instance. Clocks don't keep track of the passage of time, but rather, what we perceive as the passage of time. Meaning, perhaps time isn't what we think it is.

All I'm saying is that, at least all of the possibilities you've presented so far are things that would certainly have been accounted for already.

Also, as to the question of whether or not time actually changes, what I'm saying is, if all possible observations say that time is different, on what basis could you say it wasn't?