What absolute-static frame of reference I think absolute-static and frame of reference are mutually contradictory propositions.
There are two types of TIME . One type of time is 'Interval-of-Time' , which measures interval or duration of time between two events . This type of time is finite and dependant upon space and speed . This type of time can be named as " int-time ". The other type of time is time , which is flowing continuously on its own and moving all the mass , energy , space , and observers from present to future . This type of time is infinite and independant . This type of time can be named as " flow-time " . Relationship between " flow-time" and " int-time " is like relationship between space and distance . Whether mass , energy , space or observers are moving or not ; "int-time" will vary accordingly but "flow-time" will always flow continuously . Thus even if the observer is static , "flow-time" will flow but "int-time" will become zero. "Int-time" may vary alongwith space-dilation but "flow-time" should remain uniform throughout space or universe ; otherwise it will contradict the concept of conservation of total mass and energy of our universe . Total mass and energy of our universe is constant . "Flow-time" moves all the mass and energy of our universe from present to future . So at every moment of the "flow-time" , this total mass and energy is constant . Thus conservation of total mass and energy of our universe is maintained . If the "flow-time" becomes non-uniform , it will contradict the constancy of total mass and energy of our universe. Thus "int-time" may be non-uniform but "flow-time" is always uniform , universally uniform .
That's nothing but nonsense - from start to finish. I strongly suggest you get an education - you need it VERY badly! (Either that or go off and become a hermit and stop trying to interact with people that have actual knowledge as opposed to your made-up "stuff.")
(The bold emphasis added by OnlyMe) It would not seem so since how we define a particle includes mass. However, this would not preclude "things" which do not include mass within their description from interacting with and even affecting any of the fundamental forces of which we are aware. A photon is considered to be massless and yet interacts with both electrons and the nucleus and or nucleons of an atom, (the latter two in the case of gamma photons). We consider space to be massless and yet we have theoretically understood that space and mass or matter do interact, within the context of GR. More recently the conclusions drawn from the GP-B experiment suggest that the interaction of space and matter is not limited to the macrocosmic scales once thought. It is entirely possible that space even interacts at the atomic and subatomic scales with matter. And if this is true, it would follow that space itself could potentially both interact with and affect the expression of all of the fundamental forces.
TIME . . . . is the fabric of what covers your hands . . . .different people have different amounts of it. Some people have too much of it 'on their hands'! (joke!)
hansda, There is only one type of time that "we" are able to observe and understand. That time is represented by change as we measure it. It is completely subject to one's frame of reference and within the context of experience flows only in one direction. Forward along with change. It is my hope that what you have been attempting to do is to describe time as an underlying phenomena that exists without and beyond our ability to experience it. That becomes a purely philosophical discussion, not a scientific discussion, as it must by the nature of the limitations inherent in "our ability" to perceive the world, forever lie beyond our ability to observe and measure. What ever underlying truth there might be to what we call time could only be observed from a frame of reference, outside of what we know as the universe. We often have to accept that there are things beyond our ability to explain them, at least within the context of experience.
This has to be completely false as babies have little hands and yet generally more time than adults with big hands.
OnlyMe: I stand corrected . . . . Relativistically, I guess (on the other hand), it depends on one's "frame-of-reference" . . . similar to the universe, baby hands "expand" to beome adult hands . . . . (Still joking!) Regards/wlminex
The baby has more time potential than an adult. This form of time potential is stored within the baby's DNA, with the total time potential lowering as they age. What is interesting about the time potential within life, such as with a human, the state of maximum time potential begins with the tiny mass of a fertilized cell. As the DNA divides, the cell multiply, and an integrated body appears, the time potential is released, as the mass increases.
If there is only one kind of time, such as "universal" time, then why are there different kinds of time in physical theories? And why do humans have so many different words to describe the process of change? Is time in quantum theories/processes the same kind as in relativistic theories? Really? Can anyone demonstrate this is true? Why do Einstein's theories require that events have 'proper' time. 'coordinate' time; why is time 'contracted' or 'expanded' by relativistic motion? Why even do we experience more time subjectively when we're young, than when we get older? It seems to me that time has so many ways to describe it that the notion of universal time must be a, well, convenient fiction. Maybe because all the other kinds are too. Or, to sum it up, "the future ain't what it used to be".
Though it has little to do with physics and perhaps even time itself, this one question I can perhaps offer an explanation for, as I have also puzzled over this for a very long time. They young have very little in the way of experience and memory from which to understand the world, when compared to when we get older. The result is that the young in exploring the world and the information provided by their senses must account for every minutiae of their experience in assembling a coherent understanding of the world around them. As we grow older we have a increasing memory of our environment to draw upon, which allows us to know a tree as a tree with less "effort". As we age we no longer have to pay as close attention to all of the fine detail. The result is that time appears to move faster. The apparent speeding up of our experience of time as we age is essentially an artifact of the way our minds work and that it takes far less time to identify the "objects" in our environment, than when we are young with no experience and memory to help fill in the fine detail. A very rough and probably flawed explanation of a relatively simple function of the way our awareness of the world evolves as we grow.
to OP: . . . .What is time?? . . . . right now it's 9:53 pm MST!! Maybe you need a watch . . . . tee hee. to OnlyMe: thanks for confirming the compression of time as we age . . . . I figured it ws something like that! Gotta go . . . seems I'm running out of time! tee hee
This is a rough explanation because while it explains the incentive for the young experiencing time slower than an adult it doesn't explain how that happens.
I don't understand your use of "incentive" here. It is not a matter of incentive. But in a sense you are right. I have only described that which leads to the phenomena. I am not sure anyone could answer the implied question in the above quote. We don't know of how the brain really works. But just as the child sees things in a finer detail and experiences time as running slower, an adult in an emergency situation often experiences time as if in slow motion. Their attention is completely on the change, as it happens and in fine detail. No distractions.
OnlyMe: . . . . we're not even really sure IF the brain works - judging from many of the posts I've read (tee hee!). I agree with your last paragraph . . . having had several of these emergency 'experiences' in my lifetime, It feels as though I'm living a lot longer! wlminex
this has been asked several times on this forum. there doesn't seem to be anything called 'time'. it's just rate of change based on frame of reference. i mean, what is a second? a minute? it's all based on frame of reference.
I like to look at time as a potential. Different frames of reference are at different background potentials, due to SR velocity (kinetic energy) and/or GR gravitational potential. The background potential induces an equilibrium redefining the amount of time potential. If you look at particle/waves nature of energy, these are expressed via wavelength and frequency. The frequency aspect of energy has a connection to time. Time is the potential within energy. This can be inferred by contrasting measuring distance and time. Distance can be measured with a passive device such as a meter stick; passive variable. While time requires a dynamic measurement that requires the use of energy. Say we disjointed a photon by separating the wavelength from the frequency. We would still have the dynamic aspect called time/frequency moving at C. The potential would remain, just it would not be expressed in distance as energy, but would be independent of distance. It would not look like energy as well know. The conventional wisdom and its definition of time creates a huge conceptual problem. Time is an important variable in many equations. If time is only an naming convention but lacks any tangible substance, then a huge level of subjectivity is added to all the equations. The logical result should be subjective fuzziness. This would explain the need for relative reference , fuzzy math, and statistical; for the subjective variable. As an example of this conceptual effect, say I wanted to come up with a set of equations to define rocks. I will include tangible things like atoms, distances and angles. I will also add an imporant subjective variable called angel hair. Angel hair is sort of imaginary thing that is lacking in substance, like the concept of time. The equations can be devired, but I will add something subjective to the other objective variables. But since any subjective is fuzzy the math will need to be fuzzy math since angel hair is not really fully known and may change tomorrow. When time becomes tangible, such as time potential, it will have an impact on all the subjective theory that includes angel hair time. Most of the angel hair time problems tend to go away since these are a result of other fuzzy angel hair theory. Maybe someone can explain how a subjective variable without substance can lead to objective theory? Is it all relative?
A very good point. While it is true that our experience of time is subjective and frame of reference dependent, always moving in only one direction, we have come to incorporate a construct of time within our mathematical models involving the physical interaction between objects that is not consistent with that experience. While our inclusion of time in a 4-D representation of space-time has been and is useful, extending that model to the point that it no longer reflects experience and observation and then projecting that back on "the world", though useful as an exercise in logic, tells us very little of the fundamental basis of our subjective experience and observation. Just as GR was designed to reduce to consistency with Newton's filed equations locally, our theoretical models involving time must ultimately reduce to consistency with our experience and observation of time, to be valid. When a mathematical model is inconsistent with experience and observation, while it may provide insight, it cannot be assumed to represent a definitive definition of time. Time does appear to be a subjective observation of change and while there must be some underlying greater truth to what time is, we are at least for the present limited to that subjective experience. This is often lost to us as we immerse ourselves in one or another mathematical model whose intent is to incorporate time into a physical description of the mechanics of the universe. In many respects when it comes to the truly theoretical aspects of physics, our imaginations take on a reality equivalent to experience. While in the short run this provides a focus for advancing specific aspects of our understanding of the larger picture, it can from a longer perspective also restrict the development of a greater insight. Change often occurs when general consensus is challenged, opening up new perspectives, sometimes reviving old perspectives and sometimes resulting from a hybrid of an old perspective and contemporary theory. And yes this is largely if not wholly a philosophical treatment of the subject. On the other hand it is often from the exploration of a philosophical examination of an otherwise scientific theory that advances in our understanding originate.
