polscie,polscie what is it this time? I would call this thread "phenomenon of time" Contrary to what an established belief has been regarding "time" (24 hours / day). my personal observation is that, the maximum length of time observable is ONE second only, no more than that. fractions of one second could as well be observable but it is so fast already to our sense of seeing. In this observation of mine, I would define "time" as a universal movement that continuesly repeating itself at a speed of one second only. Any event that fits in a one second movement eventually is erased and so another event shall take place again, inside this one second time frame. Time is repeating itself at a rate of one second only. so this one minute is nothing but a repetition of one second 60 times. And really we don't observe a movement of an event in a time frame of 60 seconds, more inside a time frame of an hour. A one second observed is a one second gone forever. So if this is the case, and time is this short, where would the possibility of this time travel fits? I am truly obsessed and fascinated by time. There is nothing I could do to believe in this Man Made 24/7 365/year calendaring of time.
Ahh polscie, you and your crazy theories. One second, huh? Sounds pretty damn arbitrary to me. Hmm, let's see. I could hit a drum probably six times in one second. Grass growing makes one second irrelevant, and can only be observed over long intervals of time. If you want to talk about a real universal constant for time, you should talk about Planck time. Planck time is the amount of time that it takes light to move one planck length (the shortest possible length) in a vacuum. Planck time is (theoretically) the shortest amount of time in which anything can occur, and as such, everything can be seen as multiples of planck time (not seconds).
The Big Bang timeline is basically just a list of relative times at which the major events in the history of the universe occurred, per the collection of theories, models, and hypotheses which together form what is called the Big Bang theory. The start when time began, when t = 0 is not actually part of the Big Bang timeline (!), contrary to popular belief. Thats because the two theories of physics which are at the heart of the Big Bang theory General Relativity (GR) and the Standard Model (of particle physics; SM for short) are mutually incompatible, and that incompatibility becomes so intolerable that saying anything about what happened in the first Planck second (approx 10-43 second) is meaningless. In fact, the closer to the Planck regime when GR and the SM are utterly incompatible the less reliable are our descriptions but the relative times are nonetheless pretty good. Actually, thats not quite true what is relatively certain are temperatures; forces, matter, and radiation interact in very distinct ways, depending on the temperature (and pressure, or density), but converting from temperature back to time depends on various parameters which are not so well pinned down. However, once the average mass-energy density of the universe, today, is estimated, the clock can be wound back with some confidence (its ~six hydrogen atoms per cubic meter, or about 7 x 10-27 kg/m3). Around 10-35 seconds leptons and baryons were created (the strong force became a distinct force), and inflation caused the universe to expand so much that the part which later became our observable universe was both flat (no curvature, in the GR sense) and incredibly smooth (with only tiny variations in density due to quantum effects). At around 10-11 seconds the electromagnetic and weak force became distinct. And by about a microsecond the universe underwent another phase change it was no longer a quark-gluon plasma, but hadrons formed (protons and neutrons). When t = 1 second (more or less), nuclear reactions produced light nuclides, such as deuterium and helium-3 (before this time the universe was too hot for them to form) Big Bang nucleosynthesis. The earliest part of the universe we can still see, directly, happened when the electrons and protons (and other nuclei) combined to form hydrogen atoms; this is the recombination era, and we see it today as the cosmic microwave background and gravity took over as the dominant force (before this it was electromagnetism the universe was radiation dominated and before that, at the time of nucleosynthesis, the strong and weak forces ruled). The rest, as they say, is history the Dark Ages (during which the first stars were formed), the era of recombination (when stars and quasars ionized the diffuse hydrogen), galaxy formation, and then about 13.4 billion years later we observed the skies and worked out the timeline! I refuse to believe in the above statement. Firstly, the formation of this existence or the universe was mega huge no one can really ever tell how it did happen. no "man made" theories can ever fit the formation of what we see right now. Secondly, it is my belief from my personal observation that the maximum length of time observable is ONE second only, no more than that. fractions of one second could as well be observable but it is so fast already to our sense of seeing. In this observation of mine, I would define "time" as a universal movement that continuesly repeating itself at a speed of one second only. Thirdly, the "man made' measurement which is "YEAR" is not accurate and true. Lastly, there had been lots and lots of one second time frame that have lapsed already, so everything that took place on a one second time frame during the claim of ( big bang theory, I don't believe in this ), cannot be traced anymore.
hahaha you missed my posting. the maximum length of time observable is ONE second only, no more than that. fractions of one second could as well be observable but it is so fast already to our sense of seeing.
Time is nothing but a man made construct used to measure physical change. Time exists because we decided it should. Time is also a relative concept which is generally defined by the position of the observer, and is therefor arbitrary by definition. In My Opinion.
movement is speed. speed has an accurate measurement within the frame that equates to this observable a repeatable one second time. time is a count which is repetitive by one second only. one second is the longest observable stretch and limit of time. I believe that to extend the stretch and limit of a one second time frame could affect the capacity and capability of the brain to catch any event taking shape and to practically store it in its own memory.
If you are wearing a watch on a spacecraft traveling to the moon at half the speed of light, and I am doing the same coming back to earth, but only moving at 1/4 the speed. My watch will not match yours when we arrive at our destinations. Was one second the same for me as for you? Did we travel the same amount of these "Seconds"?
the maximum length of time observable is ONE second only, no more than that. fractions of one second could as well be observable but it is so fast already to our sense of seeing. the above statement is in the context of my personal observation from the surface of the earth.
Yes......it has been proven many times. "In one experiment, James Chin-Wen Chou and his colleagues placed one clock about 13 inches higher than its counterpart. The higher clock felt less gravity, because it was a teeny bit farther from Earth’s gravitational field. It ticked more slowly — albeit a tiny, tiny bit more slowly. The time difference adds up to about 90 billionths of a second over a 79-year lifetime, according to NIST. Still, this means that the people who conducted this study, in Boulder, Colo., are apparently aging faster than those of you reading this at sea level. In another experiment, the NIST scientists also observed that time passes more slowly when you move more quickly — a key tenet of relativity — even at very small speed variations. Clocks ticked more slowly at a difference of just 20 miles per hour, they say. Before these experiments, the most accurate relativity tests involved rockets and jet aircraft. Though the differences are imperceptible to humans, they might be useful for geophysics and other fields, such as measuring the Earth’s gravitational field, NIST says. To improve those measurements, NIST’s next step is to make clocks that can differentiate time at a distance of just one centimeter." http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/superaccurate-clocks-prove-your-head-older-your-feet "The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment
thats a good start, it originated with music, when you get more than one person playing anything they need to stay in time with each other to keep from making it a disaster. If I remember correctly it became official as a construct with the metronome. the purpose of time is to measure a series of intervals or an interval of known measure.
Quite correct. Time is simply the separation between events that we observe and measure using anything that provides us with regular oscillatory behavior that we can use as a calibration reference and that isn't a function of spatial position. Strangely though, time is a function of the relative motion between observers and their clocks. [See Photon Clock for an example of why this is.] The direction of time is the result of the statistical manner that physical states naturally tend to follow paths (state evolutions) through less specific, and thus less restricted and improbable possibilities. Running physical processes backward in time (like a movie) isn't forbidden by physics. But doing so requires that the system progress from each instantaneous state to a very specific state (out of all the possibilities) in order to arrive at the original configuration of constituent entities. The odds against that are astronomical, even at each step of the reverse process. The more complex the system, the worse the probabilities become at progressing backward through each physical configuration or state (and this is especially so when considering Hamiltonian "phase space"). Thus, time presses on in a manner dictated by the number of overall possible physical states that can be assumed at any current state for any particular physical process - especially the grand one.
Aside from the examples mentioned. When returning from the Moon, Apollo astronauts found time pieces on their craft were out of sync with the mission clocks. In 1974 the probe NASA sent to investigate Mercury also had a clock, and it fell out of sync with Earth based instruments in line with the predictions of relativity.
clocks are electro-mechanical devices, so gravity and electrical and electromagnetic fields will cause them to vary slightly
