Speed of time ?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

petm1
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:13 am

Re: Speed of time ?

Post by petm1 » Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:30 am

We count repetitive motion as time, the second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom, we do not measure the duration between these nor of the cycles we just count them. The duration of the cycles themselves are what are changing with our clocks both because of gravity and acceleration, like space expanding the duration of each cycle is equal to the next but a variable none the less.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed of time ?

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:06 am

petm1 wrote:the second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the caesium-133 atom,
Quite so. Furthermore it doesn't matter whereabouts in the universe the caesium atom is located because it will swing between states precisely the same number of times per second. This means that because of gravity the duration of the second is the most inconstant time interval in the universe, which means that the speed of light is the most inconstant speed in the universe. The entire spacetime paradigm is predicated on precisely the opposite assumption which explains why the current models of physics make no sense.

petm1
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:13 am

Re: Speed of time ?

Post by petm1 » Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:22 pm

The entire spacetime paradigm is predicated on precisely the opposite assumption which explains why the current models of physics make no sense.
The spacetime paradigm is based on the assumption of a static universe, not a universe where the metric itself is dilating. By the way, the current model of physics does make sense to a lot of us.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed of time ?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:32 pm

petm1 wrote:By the way, the current model of physics does make sense to a lot of us.
Which one are you referring to? QM and SR are both incompatible with GR so at least two of the three pillars of physics must be false.

petm1
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:13 am

Re: Speed of time ?

Post by petm1 » Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:53 am

Which one are you referring to? QM and SR are both incompatible with GR so at least two of the three pillars of physics must be false.
Once you lose the illusion of space as anything but the present then you will realise that time, in physics an imaginary entity, is in fact that part of space/time that is real. I am a separate part of time centered in the past anchored by my mass, tomorrow I am going to add my past to the past of my Harley and take a three-day ride into my future. By the way, all three will fit together you just have to look at them forward instead of backward, think of the twist in time as energy and Minkowski space as a focal point.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Speed of time ?

Post by Obvious Leo » Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:24 am

petm1 wrote:
Which one are you referring to? QM and SR are both incompatible with GR so at least two of the three pillars of physics must be false.
Once you lose the illusion of space as anything but the present then you will realise that time, in physics an imaginary entity, is in fact that part of space/time that is real. I am a separate part of time centered in the past anchored by my mass, tomorrow I am going to add my past to the past of my Harley and take a three-day ride into my future. By the way, all three will fit together you just have to look at them forward instead of backward, think of the twist in time as energy and Minkowski space as a focal point.
This is very much the way I see it, mate. Time has a real ontological status but 3D space is merely an observer construct, which means that the Minkowski spacetime is merely modelling our observation of the real world, rather than the real world itself. This makes all the counter-intuitive absurdities of QM simply vanish because questions of locality and non-locality are epistemic questions only. It also means that the universe is not Newtonian at all but rather a non-linear dynamic system, or a dissipative structure.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest