There is no such thing as absolute time if you are in a particular reference frame.duszek wrote:All kind of clocks tick faster in the mountains ?Ginkgo wrote:
Moving clocks tick slower. Special relativity.
Clocks above the earth experience weaker gravitythey tick faster. General relativity.
GPS satellites are both moving and above the earth so special and general relativity have to be taken into account.
How about sand clocks ? Does sand move faster through the hole if the gravitation is weaker ? It should rather be the other way round.
Speed of time ?
Re: Speed of time ?

 Posts: 4217
 Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Speed of time ?
The Big Bang definitely happened for it is a fact though what is not known however is what caused it to
happen or if it was the beginning of everything. For all it is is local cosmic expansion no more or no less
This does not automatically falsify the possibility of other cosmic expansions from having happened also
As for example those which are referenced by the Big Bang / Big Crunch hypothesis of cyclical Universes
happen or if it was the beginning of everything. For all it is is local cosmic expansion no more or no less
This does not automatically falsify the possibility of other cosmic expansions from having happened also
As for example those which are referenced by the Big Bang / Big Crunch hypothesis of cyclical Universes
Re: Speed of time ?
Satellites experience less time because less time because of their velocity. On the other hand, satellites experience more time because of their distance form a massive object ( the earth). You seem to be asking how fast would such satellites need to accelerate in order to cancel out gravitational time dilation.Hobbes' Choice wrote:If proximity to gravity has one effect on time, and velocity has the opposite effect on time, then there must be a slope of velocity against gravity field intensity, where one effect cancelled out the other.Ginkgo wrote:They don't cancel each other out if this is what you mean.
Unless you have mischaracterised the effects?
Off the top of may head I don't know the answer to that question. Provided of course, this is the question you are asking.

 Posts: 4217
 Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Speed of time ?
The notion of absolute time was disproved by General Relativity after Einstein discovered that if light was a constantGinkgo wrote:
There is no such thing as absolute time if you are in a particular reference frame
time and space could not be too. And which is why the four dimensions merged into one becoming spacetime. And so
while time itself may not need a medium to operate within as such it does interact with the three spatial dimensions
 Hobbes' Choice
 Posts: 8364
 Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Speed of time ?
yes you have the question.Ginkgo wrote:Satellites experience less time because less time because of their velocity. On the other hand, satellites experience more time because of their distance form a massive object ( the earth). You seem to be asking how fast would such satellites need to accelerate in order to cancel out gravitational time dilation.Hobbes' Choice wrote:If proximity to gravity has one effect on time, and velocity has the opposite effect on time, then there must be a slope of velocity against gravity field intensity, where one effect cancelled out the other.Ginkgo wrote:They don't cancel each other out if this is what you mean.
Unless you have mischaracterised the effects?
Off the top of may head I don't know the answer to that question. Provided of course, this is the question you are asking.
Re: Speed of time ?
It is possible to work out the calculations, but to be perfectly honest I don't know the answer. For a start one would need to know the distance satellites orbit above the earth and how much faster on board clock are running. I would imagine there would be a particular orbiting height whereby there would be a cancellation factor.Hobbes' Choice wrote:
yes you have the question.
Sorry that is as much as I know.
Re: Speed of time ?
Sorry, but if you want to understand the time (and the matter at all), you have to forget the theory of relativity. I am allways surprised how many guys still believe in it
Re: Speed of time ?
If your GPS works on your iphone then that is a good reason to believe it.Cerveny wrote:Sorry, but if you want to understand the time (and the matter at all), you have to forget the theory of relativity. I am allways surprised how many guys still believe in it
Re: Speed of time ?
Physics should be afraid of mathematicians and naive enthusiasts. Mathematicians are able to materialize such things as nothing, infinity or metrics, that violates the triangle inequality and the silly others are able to believe in it :(
Re: Speed of time ?
There is no "place" were to go (yet).Cerveny wrote:Speed of the time is related to the speed of the light. Nothing can overtake the time. Then "mc2" can be understood as some kind of kinetic energy of the mass moving with/along the time...
Last edited by Cerveny on Sun May 03, 2015 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

 Posts: 4217
 Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Speed of time ?
The laws of physics are in mathematical formCerveny wrote:
Physics should be afraid of mathematicians
Re: Speed of time ?
They should be based on some (reasonable) model. A model is inherently materialistic and always logical..surreptitious57 wrote:The laws of physics are in mathematical formCerveny wrote: Physics should be afraid of mathematicians...
Last edited by Cerveny on Sun May 03, 2015 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Speed of time ?
That would exclude quantum mechanics.Cerveny wrote:We should be based on some (reasonable) model. A model is inherently materialistic and always logical..surreptitious57 wrote:The laws of physics are in mathematical formCerveny wrote: Physics should be afraid of mathematicians...
Re: Speed of time ?
..sigh!
Re: Speed of time ?
Quantum mechanics works with probabilities. Thus, it does not determine the development (the next "time" layer) uniquely. It offers only certain "smooth" changes of (discrete) values. Indeterminism of QM sharply clash theory of relativity. Mentioned "model" has stochastic feature.
Spacetime thus does not "expand" but grows / condenses / crystallizes from the "Future". Each quantum interactions (measurements) fixates / glues the new element of spacetime to its 4D history...
Spacetime thus does not "expand" but grows / condenses / crystallizes from the "Future". Each quantum interactions (measurements) fixates / glues the new element of spacetime to its 4D history...