Speed of Light = Speed of Time

Loosely, I think you are right. Think of the speed of light as a barrier where one can not cross. In theory, that applies for things going faster than light (theoretical particles called Tachyons).

I am able to travel through time, but only in one direction so I can never get back.

As I understand it, space time without any matter present is flat and linear.When matter is introduced,space time is warped by the mass of the matter.

So if space time is warped, and stretched by matter,then space time,having taken a longer path, should result in time passing slower within this warped area due to matter.

But space time is also present within the matter,penetrating the voids within it in an even more circuitous path, therefor it is logical to me, a very simple mind, that time would pass slower within a solid object than at the surface of that object.

It is the space within the object that makes it "buoyant" in space time.An object with no space within it;pure mass, would result in a true singularity, no longer supported by space time and would disappear from our observable universe.With space time no longer penetrating it, time would stop at this place, if it could actually be referred to as a place,but can space exist without it's other dimension, time?

Does this make any sense to anyone except me?

Time passes slower in the presence of mass. This is true, but the difference of time passage between the surface skin of a mass and its interior (assuming the object is not large like a planet) would be unmeasurable.

Your last paragraph is not very clear and I have no idea what buoyant means relative to time-space. The only object that could reach such densities is going to be a black hole. Theoretically, the mass density is so large at the singularity that time slows essentially to a near stop if not a stop, but the object still clearly exists as its forces are felt on other objects. Bear in mind that all of our math breaks down at the point of a singularity, so it all becomes mathematical speculation and all bets are off.

A neutron star would not really be a candidate because the neutrons pack only so far before fermion pressure keeps the neutrons from collapsing further. It still severely warps space and time.

My reference to "buoyant" is an analogy to a ship floating on the surface of water.The heavier it is, the deeper it sinks.When a ship sinks, it creates a temporary sinkhole in the surface,that is similar to a black hole in space.If the matter is indeed a singularity, and has sunk below our visible horizon, perhaps what we interpret as a black hole is simply a remnant of a sinking singularity that has left our dimension.

As for temporary, we do not have enough history as a sentient species to tell if the black hole will eventually vanish as space time recovers from the "puncture", and assumes it's normal dimensions.

I think your analogy may be a little misleading for you.

The reason that a black hole is "invisible" has to do with the escape velocity of the black hole exceeding the speed of light.

When that happens no radiation or light can escape the "event horizon" (radius where the escape velocity exceeds C). This is why you can not detect the black hole directly, only through its effects on space and matter around it.

Is there anything that can warp space time except matter and high energy? How about gravity from an extra dimension leaking into ours?

There seems to be a very large mass drawing all of the galaxies toward a certain point,the Great Attractor, that is currently beyond our visible universe.

Could space time have been"born" with non-homogeneous areas that could appear to be gravity induced? Could this be the "dark matter" that only shows itself by it's effect on space time,and matter?

Extra-dimensional gravity comes from string theory. It is a fascinating theory, but it is only a theory with no empirical data to back it up.

The location of the Great Attractor is somewhere between 150 and 300 million light years away. That is well within the boundaries of our visible universe, which extends about 13 billion lightyears.

The non-homogonous nature of the universe that you speak of is believed to be due to quantum fluctuations in the early universe's inflationary phase. Those fluctuations may be the reason the universe has the structure we see now, rather than a truly homogenous soup. This is unrelated to dark matter - as far as we know, but there is an emerging theory that quantum fluctuations create a gravity dipole and these dipoles may be responsible for the observations we see that we attribute to dark matter.

Frankly, I have no idea why such gravity dipoles would not be homogenous throughout the universe since quantum fluctuations are, at least on a macro scale, homogeneous. If true, why is "dark matter" observed as discrete clumps?

I guess I should have said Dark Flow instead of the Great Attractor.

Here is a quote form Wikipedia:"The dark flow is a velocity tendency of galaxies to move in the direction that was formerly thought to be caused by the Great Attractor, but are now theorized to be outside the observable universe. These findings were published in 2008 and are still disputed."

I realize it is still disputed, but may yet prove to be valid.If indeed there are forces outside of our observable universe that are affecting matter on a very large scale, then perhaps these forces were present before the big bang, and have influenced the formation and shape of our space time universe, including the first collection of gas clouds into stars,galaxies,etc.Perhaps the first black holes formed in deformations of space time caused by outside forces?

For some reason, no one wants to consider anything outside of our dimension as pre-existing before the big bang;A space-time "exoskeleton" that controls the shape and form of our dimension.

I realize to a learned person my ramblings may be simplistic,but the real answers may indeed be simple.

"Since the mathematicians got hold of my theory, I don't understand it myself."

--A. Einstein.

You wrote, "For some reason, no one wants to consider anything outside of our dimension as pre-existing before the big bang;A space-time "exoskeleton" that controls the shape and form of our dimension."

Not at all. String theorist, Brian Green, describes just such things in one of his books called The Hidden Reality.

I think speed of light is a little misleading. It helps people think about it, but this "finite" amout of speed applies to the entire (infinite) electromagnetic spectrum, right? Let's just call it C.

Blacks holes are not all encompassing, though, as we have seen with casual observation of quasars with x-ray jets "escaping" from the black hole. I believe it is yet to be proven whether or not the jets are created from within the black or hole or at the nearest edge of the event horizon though.

Black holes can be detected directly since we are learning to classify these x-ray (gamma/blazar) emissions and look for these red flags announcing black hole locations.

Of course, superluminal blazars are only theoretical...but how could we observe something traveling backwards in time at all? Can we construct anti-light detectors? I imagine this as observing a spoked wheel before, during and after resonance.

Thoughts?

The speed of light applies to everything, electromagnetic radiation and baryonic matter alike.

The jets are formed by the massive magnetic fields generated by a black hole. The fields cause some of the charged surrounding matter at the event horizon to be expelled along the polar regions of the magnetic field at great velocity (less than C).

Black holes are essentially the universe's version of a high speed particle accelerator on steroids.

Lewis Carroll Epstein had some ideas in "Relativity Visualized" that might interest you. He draws a graph of your reference frame Time on the vertical and space on the horizontal axis, if he uses seconds for time, he uses light seconds for space. He says we need a myth, that everyone moves through space time at the speed of light. He has an interesting treatment for the lengthening hours and the shortening measuring rods approaching a massive object.

I've heard this theory as well, very compelling.

I agree. There is a velocity of self awareness present in the self or there can be no knowledge of self. Epstein resolves this by assuming a means of self awareness that is pre-event, and so resolves c^2 in the process. By assuming that the speed of awareness is constant, he is in agreement with Einstein on the nature of observation in relativistic extremes. Einstein realized that even if a person were moving at relativistic velocity, that he would not notice any change in the nature of time and experience.

You have to start with Being and Being must have a means of awareness, and that awareness, whether electo-magnetic or otherwise must have a charachteristic, constant, velocity. That means of awareness is a pre-condition of any observation by any observer.

For those in the know, this is maybe 101 stuff. I'm not one of them, and still can't even figure what happens to mass (or is it momentum?) - up to infinity or down to zero. Scoping the internet, I can find completely polarized ideas. Not understanding that, I can hardly comment here, but I like people asking fundamental questions.

There is an underlying principle - If somebody cannot explain a thing, they don't truly know the answer. Another way of putting that would be, if you don't understand the question, you'll never find the answer. I wonder how many of us do things on 'autopilot', and only when tasked to explain do we realize a great big hole in our knowledge. For many years I used a fundamental equation, not grasping it's meaning. It worked, but I didn't know why. One day a diagram said more in a few pixels than a chapter of a book ever could. No, I'm not telling what it was (!).

Good question.

To hide my shame, I shall post 'off topic' and 'anonymous'

Kris

D'oh, I shall have to go open so nobody thinks it's tinker-monkeying ! I'll probably forget the off-topic as well .

You guys covered just about everything here. A couple of things left out. Why is it that if you have a photon on the shore of the river and the marker rock and you have its entangled brother photon on the ship, no matter how fast the ship goes and no matter how far the ship goes - a spin force imparted on the stationary photon will instantainiously impart spin on the photon on the ship?

We as human beings can only perceive electromechanical information about the universe. Every bit of our perception comes from some sort of electromechanical force/energy. Light, sound, touch - all electromechanical. How can we have a complete understanding of our universe if we don't consider things that may be happening outside of our EM perceptions?

Now I'm totally freaked. Recent(ish) experiments demonstrating quantum entanglement over large distance are straight out of Star Trek.

<The previous was me - I just forgot to forget to uncheck the anon tickbox . No problem, I got it right in another reality>

Suppose we consider entangle particles as the two ends of a string,with the middle portions exiting our universe. If you twist one end, the other end will also twist.And because the body of the string is outside of our universe, our rules do not apply insofar as time and distance and speed limit of C.

In string theory there are two types of strings; closed ended loops and open ended strings.

Closed loops are bound with the brane. They are the constituents of all baryonic matter (atoms, photons, etc.).

Open ended loops are free to travel within the bulk (the volume that contains any number of branes) and can pass through branes. Gravity is thought to be an open ended string.

Branes exist with a volume called the bulk. We exist on one such brane.

String theory would not support your hypothesis because baryonic matter is made of a string loop and therefore do not have free ends to twist.

Definately very spooky stuff.

I think that is because it is had to not ignore what is not there.

All kidding aside, we already have a huge array of instruments to see, hear, and touch things that are beyond our senses.

A simple radio converts portions of the electromagnetic spectrum into a form we can detect and use.

We have atomic force microscopes to measure things too small to see and too minute to feel.

Not beyond our senses. We don't have senses to perceive it. We can't build machines to perceive what we cannot conceive. Our brains are limiters of reality. Our brains are built to perceive only electro-magnetic energy. Our reality is an electro-mechanical model built in the construct of a larger reality. Any theory of actual reality will have anomalies and paradoxes unless this is factored in.

Prove that we are missing something in our understanding.

Isn't that kind of a kindergarten level response? As far as I have heard, most of the things you believe to be the truth still haven't been completely proved without paradoxes and dead ends. Maybe I should answer "prove string theory". In either case, I don't claim to be a "prover." math makes me fall asleep far too easily to ever get there. I am just a connoisseur of the theories.

http://www.theunobservableuniverse.com/index.html

Well, it is your claim, so it is up to you to prove your claim. You can't simply pluck some idea out of one's head, claim it to be true, then point a finger at others and say prove that my idea is not true or even true. Your claim, your burden of proof. That is not kindergarten, but the scientific method.

String theory, while unprovable by experiment (so far), has the benefit of being a working theory with decades of work (mathematical proofs) by scholarly individuals in a peer reviewed forum.

That work describes a working theory with underpinnings that form a foundation for that theory and cary forward the theory to a logical conclusion where each part of the puzzle fits neatly with the next. There still may be some pieces missing, but just like a real jigsaw puzzle, once enough pieces of the puzzle fall into place a picture emerges with enough clarity that one can understand the meaning of the picture.

String theory has considerably more foundation and form to it than a simple ad-hoc idea without a founding hypothesis that describes why/how that idea works.

The link is interesting, but after several minutes of delving into the marketing spin I am still unsure what the author's premise really is. I already have two other books on my reading list, so I do not have time to buy a third. Plus I am a little turned off when someone tries to sell you a product based on marketing hype and no actual substance. This make me believe that there really is not that much substance inside the "box" and they must resort to a more emotional tactic. I may be wrong, but it feels like it is thin on substance.

Have you read the book?

Really Anonymous Hero? This is where you go?

You are the real deal right? Physicist/Scientist? You seem highly educated and know the math. I thought true men of science have inquisitive minds? I thought men of science would be open to new ideas and view points. Would take the hard road to insure that no stone is over-turned. Never resting in order to insure everything is looked at. No? How many decades does one continue to work on the ongoing theory before conceding that the blocking paradoxes indicate a rudimentary problem?

You go negative? You just push back and label me as the hombre loco? Not worth your time? Judging a book by its cover and by some junk that the marketing people wrote?

That's fine. I am good with the satisfaction that I have a view/glimpse of the nature of things that even a highly educated expert like you doesn't.

Wouldn't it be interesting if you were the guy to read this book and became famous as the guy that did all the mathematical proofs and got to the full unified theory.

Anyway, don't spend time responding to me. I'm just a bystander. Use that time to crack that book to see if you find anything of interest - because you are an actual player that could make a difference.

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. None of that was attacking you personally nor your beliefs.

I wanted to establish two points:

1. When someone makes a claim it is their job to supply the proof behind it.
2. The link to the book was mostly sales hype and I was not able to get enough understanding of the author's claim. That does not mean that there is no substance inside the covers, but it does make me wonder if there is anything of substance when they dance around the point.

My question, "Have you read the book?", was an honest question. I wanted to hear from you what was in there and how he substantiated his claim and your opinions on the book. Are there any scientific papers written by the author that have been presented on the subject?

I didn't misinterpret. I don't feel attacked personally.

1. I never agreed to play by some predefined set of rules

2. Inherently, marketing hype is marketing hype. So I stand by my statements. You are choosing to be blocked by marketing hype.

You are drawing a mental line in the sand and noting that you will not cross over it until I play by your rules and provide the actions you demand.

The evidence you glean from this thread actually leads you to believe that there is a chance I haven't read the book or as I would much prefer - listened to it? I wouldn't presume that my take on the book would sway you any more than marketing hype nor that I would not in some way do the book injustice. I leave you to your fate, karma or whatever notion you may believe in (or not believe in yet it actually is in play...) as to how the content of this book does or does not enter your life. Rest assured that the content of the book is all science, written by a physicist and has no religious, spiritual or psychological under-pinnings of any sort.

Sorry. I may have assumed something that is wrong.

Engineers and scientists work by peer review. That requires someone that proposes an idea or a theory to substantiate that with a proof.

The same "rules" that you do want to play by apply to argumentation. That is, if someone has a position and makes a claim, then it is the claimant that must substantiate their position with evidence that supports the claim.

Those are not my rules. That is the scientific method.

You presented a link to a book. The only way I have to understand the contents of that book and the premise the author makes is to either ask you for a synopsis of the book or buy it and read it. The latter is not going to be an option right now.

Your position on the matter seems to be, "this is it, if you do not agree with me you are wrong and I don't have to prove it."

If anything, I feel that you are the one drawing a line in the sand and unwilling to budge or explain your position in detail. So, I guess there is no further discussion possible if that is your position and you do not want to play by any agreed upon rules.

The reason is that the distances are an assumption. There is no difference beween the space one photon is in and the other, and there is no difference between the one photon and the other. They are the same photon in two places at the same time. The experience of the the photon is of both places, and any force or change in one place is seen to be in both by the same photon.

Look up quantum anomalies and study them. Then assume that they are the rules in effect everywhere and at all times. This is so because we are existant with the Grand Observer and are objects within being within the same Oneness. I know that sounds unscientific to most people, but quantum is weird like that!

Consider the possibility that space time existed before the big bang:a field of emptiness,except for energy fluctuations that cancel each other out.

Then consider the big bang as a bubble,like a bubble in a carbonated drink. As it rises,it grows in volume, and the expansion progresses in an increasing manner.Furthermore, consider that everything we can sense exists on the surface of that bubble.

Anything that interferes with the rise of the bubble would have an effect on the expansion rate;if perhaps it does not rise in a straight line,encountering interference along the way,the expansion rate could vary over time.

Would this not be similar to what we observe currently?

First, what you propose makes sense, but time-space for those inside the expanding bubble (I choose to use inside the volume of the bubble because it more accurately describes our observable universe) would follow the laws that govern that universe and would be isolated from any external events or forces outside that bubble universe.

If you follow string theory, the only force that may interact between branes within the bulk would be open ended strings, which is thought to be gravity.

If two branes collide the result would be catastrophic for the two branes, so brane to brane interference would only happen if they collided.

All of that is unprovable theory (so far), but the math seems to work out.

So far, every theory about multiple universes seems to suggest that there is no interaction possible between other universes. In this case I am calling those other theories as anything credible with some math to back it up as opposed to someone's off-the-cuff imagination.

To throw an even bigger wrench into the works, I find it intriguing that within the next 25 to 50 years we will have developed computers capable to process such volumes of data that they would be able to process the equivalent thoughts of every living and dead human being in existence in real-time. That means we could theoretically simulate the sum total of every mind that existed at a processing rate that our brains enjoy now. While that seems far fetched, it is not as far fetched as one might first think.

If that becomes a possibility - and it looks very much to be true - then we will have enough computing power to create our own virtual universe simulation. We set the laws of the universe as we see fit. We would be able to create in that simulation every thought process of an entire population of sentient beings and generate a virtual universe that we could watch unfold before us. Sort of the ultimate Reality TV.

Given that will be demonstrated to be a reality in the near future it begs the question - might we be someone else's computer simulation? How would we tell?

There is an old sci-fi story named "The news from D street" by Canadian writer Andrew Weiner, that describes that very scenario.I recommend it for a glimpse into the future from the past.

"I bring the news from D street, and the news is not good.."

(Closing sentence from the book, as best I can remember)

I don't think there is or ever will be a computer that is capable of groking my wife or my cat!

I think you are close, and if you assume we are on the inner surface, then the "expansion" need not enter any other space to "expand".

Time does not "slow" because of velocity, it "slows" because of acceleration. The slowing of the passage of time is related only to the change of an acceleration, not to the terminal or momentary velocity of the object.

Velocity and Acceleration are dependent on the existence and the awareness of more than one object in the same relative space. Light is the means of observation, and so it's velocity of propagation is critical to the means of observation. When an object approaches that velocity, the means of observation becomes more and more diminished. In effect, the object becomes indistinguishable from light. But from the objects point of view, the universe outside itself is obtaining the same velocity. The universe from that perspective is just as luminous. Mass losses it's definition when the relative velocity between two masses is at or near the speed of awareness.

Consider the light itself. It is a constant change in charge through space. It has a characteristic frequency, which itself is a velocity that is curvilinear in one dimension and linear in the direction of propagation. There are direct changes to this relationship when an object moves relative to another and the movement is observable. Again, when the velocity of light is approached, the light itself becomes changed relative to it's source and destination. What changes is the wavelength of the charge cycle of the light, because the distance is shortening or lengthening at near the velocity of oscillation and propagation. Doppler effects can be observed until the relationship collapses into a wave function. Acceleration of a particle to the speed of light is the equal and opposite action to the collapse of a wave function into a particle.

A final note, the particle accelerating does not experience a difference in time. This is because the differences lie outside the individual particle because a particle is continuously in stable relation to itself at all times. It is only the differences between the particle and all other particles that is relative. To fall into the event horizon of a black hole will take but an instant from the faller's point of view and experience. From the outside it may seem to take forever. The black hole itself is having this very experience. It is, from our perspective outside of it, a multi-billion year long explosion.

You wrote, "Time does not "slow" because of velocity, it "slows" because of acceleration."

I think not.

The equation for calculating time dilation does not include an acceleration component, only velocity.

t = t0/√(1-v^2/c^2)

This is well understood.

Furthermore any change in acceleration is the third derivative of velocity.

The rest of your points I just do not understand.

c in that equation is an acceleration.

No, it is the velocity of light in distance/time (i.e., meters per second).

Pardon, c^2 is an acceleration.

No, it is not. Do the math... Think about the units for velocity = distance / time or meters/second (m/s).

Acceleration is m/s^2.

c^2 is the same as (m/s * m/s) = m^2/s^2 ≠ m/s^2

Do you agree?

if acceleration= m/s^2 and we set m^2=M

then

m^2/s^2 = M/s^2 {looks like acceleration to me}

Exactly! There are two objects in the relationship "m".

What? What two objects?

m² will yield a single value, a number and what is being quantified (mass).

Looks like it until you examine the definition of M and then the units fail the test for acceleration.

There are ALWAYS two objects in ANY measurement. The Observer and the Observed. This fact is inescapable even if it can be ignored in classical physics.

Yes, but you are looking at it wrong. I just explained that in this post a few minutes ago. Look at that and tell me what you think and if it makes sense.

When you say "initial point of reference" you imply a knowledge of place, and that place cannot be known to change unless there is another place already known to compare it to. An object in motion implies a relative other object for the "motion". Starting with one position and then assuming a distance traveled the next moment is meaningless if the only object referenced is itself! There is NO RELATIVE MOTION FOR A SINGULARITY ALONE. There must be an observer in a different place at the outset in order for a measurement of motion to be possible. Notice how closely this resembles the two-slit experiment. The particle itself is not there unless there is a physicist to look for it! Motion cannot happen unless there is an observer to look at it move! The observer must always be present in the measurement.

I think the "observer" is inherent when you talk about an initial and final state.

Think of it as one of those speed traps with the two black rubber hoses running across the road.

The first hose is the initial state and the second hose the final state. All you need is the distance between the two hoses (∆d) and "two observers" to mark the time interval as your speeding wheels cross each hose.

However, that has nothing to do with proving C^2 is an acceleration (the original point of your post #29).

Hmm... you're right.

No answers, but a couple of questions.

Why is it not likely that when someone travels faster than the speed of light we simply see what has happened earlier in time? We may not be able to do anything but watch, as you would a day old rerun on television.

Isn't it possible that the apparent slowing of time as we travel closer to the speed of light is simply the effect of more matter passing through our measuring device slowing it down because of the increase in density of material at speed?

Just wondering. Elroy

Again, it is because of the rules in effect. Change is inevitable because uniqueness is a rule. Every "different" place or thing Observed within the GO is a unique place, a unique thing, and a unique experience. There is no going back because that too would be a unique exception and self canceling. Change happens because uniqueness is the law. Time seems to move in one direction only, because each and every moment is a new and unique experience/expression of the things/places within the GO's observable self.

Time has speed?? If we use time to measure speed how can time have speed? How do you measure the speed of time?

If we can't measure time how did we happen to intercept and land on Mars? Dumb luck...?

Go ahead, try it.

We have no way to actually measure time.

We can create devices that measure the passage of time, but we can't actually measure it. It is an important distinction when we are talking about time.

We really do not know much at all about time. Is it an illusion? Why does it only seem to run one direction? All the math has no problem with it running forward or backward, but it never runs backward. Why is that? No one really knows, so time is a bit of a mystery.

We can measure events that occur, based on other events, to generate terms that we refer to as time intervals.Whether it be the pendulum, or the oscillation of a Cesium atom,we rely on the passages of events to measure time.This however, tells us nothing about time itself.Time can exist without events,but events cannot occur without time.

Space itself can be describes as a time interval, or just the reverse.

Consider this scenario:An object is 1 light second away.It is also 186000 miles away.

or 300000 kilometers away.Either definition is valid.But how do we determine the second to which we refer?It it based on comparison of relative events.How do we determine kilometers?Each relies upon some arbitrary anthropocentric starting point.

We can measure liquids, and yet know nothing about the liquid itself.

Space can exist without time, but spacetime requires both space and time.Spacetime does not require events to exist.The "Big Bang" or big bubble was an event that occurred in spacetime,which existed before the BB.The BB might have been the first event in the history of spacetime, or not, but it introduced matter into spacetime.

Nonetheless,matter does not play well with spacetime.It distorts it into an unnatural shape, and spacetime responds by forcing all matter into the smallest possible shape, a sphere.The ultimate goal of spacetime is to get all the matter in the universe back into the singularity bottle from which it came.This pressure resulting from the warping of spacetime can also be accurately described as gravity.

Spacetime was perfectly balanced before the introduction of matter and electromagnetic energy by the BB event,being totally occupied by a self-cancelling energy field.This is now referred to as Zero Point Energy Field and had been verified by the Casimir effect.

Spacetime forces all electromagnetic energy to follow the lines of it's structure.Light must always follow a straight spacetime line.Even if the line appears curved to an outside observer,the light perceives it as straight. A photon would feel no centrifugal force when the light follows a curved spacetime line.Neither would an object following the same path.

Of course, all the above is just my conjecture, intended to stimulate opposing opinions and subject to corrections and insights provided by other members.

i believe as you say that we have no way to measure time. - that said i have to also say that what we generally refer to as time and its passage is the relationship between anything with anything else as far as relative motion is concerned. thats it - the parts of our universe do not need time to do what they do - we need time to make our own marks on these processes.

I am surprised AH. You being a string theory guy and all. Isn't one of the tenants of ST - when you get really far into it - that you get to a level that is deamed to be the actual ticks of reality? space between string constructs that are so fine there simply is nothing else and the spaces are the difference in one moment to the next?

Time is thought to be able to be quantized and the smallest would be Plank Time (about 10^-43 seconds). So the theory goes.

Nevertheless, you still can't measure it, can't put it in a bottle (except maybe Jim Croce can), can't examine it or find out what bits it is made from. It is pretty much a mystery.

Plank time is simply the time it takes for a photon to transgress one plank length. Since a Plank length can not be subdivided, it is therefore the smallest unit of time possible. However, it still doesn't describe what time is and it is not a measurement of time, but a measurement of a photon's passage per unit distance.

In that sense Plank time is no different than noting the passage of a pendulum on a clock. Both are a function of measuring distance traveled of something to mark the passage of time.

Time is a measurement, not a thing. If there were no movement in the universe, time would stand still.

I respectfully disagree.That is like saying that without the ability to measure flow then a river does not exist.True, that time, as generally conceived, is based on events,compared to other events, relative to each other.But time itself is a physical reality of SpaceTime.

Without time, space would have no dimension and all things would occur at once, and all things would be in the same point(Sounds a bit like a singularity,huh?)

Time existed long before any sentient creatures were available to assign units to it.(IMHO)

Everything does exist at any one point in time, a point being an infinitely minute non-measureable measurement.

But if a river completely freezes solid, can you measure it's flow? No, because it is no longer moving although it is still a river.

What you are saying is that time cannot exist without space. but space is a measurable thing even if it is an infinitely large void and time is an infinite quantitave entity.

Either can exist without the other but with one taken out of the equation, the other one becomes immearsurable. Either one will stand still without the other one to give it momentum.

Please explain to me how one would measure space without time?

Time is irrevelant in the measurement of space. If space is infinite in size then any portion of it is a point and immeasurable but certainly exists.

A river does not exist without movement...it is a lake

It is the seeing of change. That is all it is. Who sees? What changes?

The Grand Observer sees change within himself and that is Time. Consciousness is the only thing that can account for Presence, Space, Change and Time. Classical Physics falls short because the tendency is to assume unknown causality to unmeasurable non-physical phenomenon. The Plank constant is nothing more than the apparent minimal distance between two things that they can see each other as separate or that we can measure as separate as "outside" observers. It may not be the minimum and there may be no limit to the separation imaginable.

When discussing Time and Space, Metaphysics must enter the conversation or QP, Relativity and Classical Physics remain unresolved, even though they take place in the same reality! What are the rules?

I don't see the mystery. It is the equal and opposite result of assuming the existence of space. If The Grand Observer (Quantum Physics) is ever present, and in all directions, at all times, then the only way for this to be true is if the Grand Observer (GO) is looking within to see any thing. In doing so, Space (distance) is assumed to exist within the only space the GO would be guaranteed to see something. Time is the rate of change of the means of observation over that assumed distance. All of it is internal to the GO.

Consider E=mc^2. There are two relativistic masses in this equasion even though the equasion has been simplified. Without at least one observer to see and one observed to be seen, E has no meaning.

Now consider E=M1+M2c^2. M1 is the GO. M2 is a subset of m and M1. M2 is the Observed. c^2 is the velocity of observation from opposite points of view over the SAME Distance. (That is why c^2, when properly understood, is an acceleration. Same d but two different directions for E and t)

What is measured as E is measured by M1 by observing M2 and the intervening space within the GO. The distance is assumed, so the energy observed is directly related to the assumption of distance, and the changes in that assumption. t is what keeps it all equal to the GO. t and d are manifestations of the same E. Only the mass remains unchanged within itself.

Now you will say the distance is directly measurable and absolute. This is true, but only from the perspective within the GO as M2. From the GO's point of view, everything is equal to GO. Har far into your self can you observe before you find something completely separate from you? You can't look far enough for that my friend, and neither can the GO! As a subset of M1/GO, M2 is capable of seeing the distance to M3 or M4 or M5 or any number of subset masses within the GO from within the GO as absolutely there and measurable. Unless the GO himself evaporates suddenly, it will remain true. You and I are M2 masses within the total mass/presence of the GO. Time and distance are inverse functions of each other within the GO himself. They are the means of the dream so to speak.

Please explain how C^2 is an acceleration.

Assuming C is expressed in meters / second or m/s, the equation would be:

m/s • m/s = m^2/s^2

So, what am I doing to not understand this properly?

This might be going down the road of light curving due to gravity .

The distance is the same. The time and the two masses, is different.

You need two things to have a speed. One thing to move, and the other to see it move. But when you have only two things there is only ONE distance between them. There are two directions, there are two perspectives, and there are two experiences, but only One distance.

c^2 is what you get when the two things are simplified into just one thing, m. m is not just one thing or you can't have an observation! Each thing present at the moment and place of observation is interacting relative to the same space, the same distances, at the moment of measurement. Einstein was perplexed by this because the observer, somehow, always winds up in the equation. And the simplification always resulted in c^2. He had no explanation for the existence of c^2 and he was very leery of the "rules" of Quantum mechanics that insist on there always being a GO.

You wrote, "You need two things to have a speed."

Here is where I am confused. In classical physics velocity (you call it speed) is distance divided by time. Those are the two things you need. The observer is not part of the math.

That is why velocity is expressed in meters/second, miles/hour, etc.

You wrote, "Einstein was perplexed by this because the observer, somehow, always winds up in the equation."

How does the observer end up in the equation? What term in in the equation represents the observer? I am familiar with inertial frames of references that Einstein used, but not observers.

Now, here is my understanding of why the term velocity squared is used. Let's use E=mc^2.

1. The units for energy is kg•m^2/s^2. You can also see this with the equation Ke = 1/2m•v^2. Again, velocity is squared. Units must match on both sides of the equation or you know there is an error.
2. Why is C^2 for E=m•c^2... The reason C is used is because for relativity to work, all observers must observe the same physical laws regardless of the inertial frame of reference. That is why no matter how fast your personal velocity the speed of light is always the same value, C. C is the only constant in relativity and that is why it is used.

You left out the relative change. For there to be a velocity, there has to be two things or there is no velocity.

If you are sitting in empty space, completely void of any other matter, what do you measure space with? How do you determine any distance? YOU are the only thing, and so YOU have no velocity. You must have something else to relate to in order to have a distance of any kind. This is why the Grand Observer is always there in Quantum mechanics/Physics. Velocity has no meaning to just ONE thing!

Where, pray tell would you find "... empty space, completely void of any other matter,..."?

Does not sound like the universe we are discussing here.

True, but still, how can you have a velocity with only one thing? Velocity ALWAYS includes a point of reference. It must, or it is meaningless.

You simply determine distance as the delta from the initial state or position of the object and the final position of the object.

The point of reference becomes the initial state or position (Inertial Reference Frame).

So the expanded equation for velocity is:

V = ∆D/∆T = (Dfinal - Dinitial) / (Tfinal - Tinitial)

Where D is distance and T is time.

So, yes, you are right that you need a reference point, but that is always assumed to be the initial time-space coordinate of the object and that is why velocity is usually written v = D/T.

If you arbitrarily assign the initial start or position as 0 (zero) the equation takes the form:

v = (Dfinal - 0) / (Tfinal - 0) = D/T

Its becomes the same thing.

The initial time-space coordiante has to have an origin. If the object in question is that origin, then how does it move away from itself as a reference point? Does it close it's eyes and imagine a nice sandy beach somewhere? and if so, isn't that nice sandy beach right there where the object is already? Delta only has meaning when there is change that can be observed, and for that, more than one thing must be present.

It has been an unfortunate practice in physics to distance oneself from the experiment or measurement and this becomes problematic when trying to understand the nature of time and space. There is no separation. Unless you can come to grips with this "untestable" concept, you will always find space and time to be a bugger of a problem!

Hero's right. You can't measure time, only observe the effect of it. The only way to "see" it is to have an experience. E=E Energy = Experience

The time-measurement anomaly is a direct result of everything being consciousness. Only experience can reveal the time, even if you are a fundamental particle.

Well, now you are crossing into the domain of non-science when you toss in consciousness. For the sake of the original argument I try to avoid that which is untestable.

Even string theory tends to reside in that same domain (at least for now), but consciousness is little understood and much speculated about.

The closest I know of with mixing consciousness with science is in quantum physics with the double slit experiment and it derivatives where particles exhibit bot wave and particle attributes.

Most fascinating is the act of observing a single photon changes the results of the experiment in a time-retro way.

One experiment uses a beam splitter (50%) and a laser to emit a single photon. One path is of the splitter is longer than the other. If the only detector employed is at the target we see an interference pattern, which tells us the single photon appears to travel through both slits, not as a particle, but a wave.

However, when you place detectors just before the slits the same experiment yields no interference patter, just a single photon goes through only one of the two slits.

It gets even screwier. The next experiment imparts a spin on the photon just before the two slits (after it has already passed through the beam splitter). The left slit device imparts a spin in one direction and the other slit imparts the spin in the opposite direction. This way we can tell which slit the photon takes by virtue of detecting its spin.

The only detector is at the target screen. What do we get? No interference pattern. only photons with a spin that represents which slit it passed through.

Now the real twist. If another device is placed on the target side of the slits (just before the target) that undoes the spin on one slit so that it matches the spin of the other slit and we turn that device on, we get an interference pattern again!

In the final experiment we have tagged each photon with a unique spin depending on which slit it enters and after it passes through the slits we then scramble that tagging so that it is impossible to determine the particle path, undoing what we did before the slits.

The question is how does a change in the photon's spin after it has passed through the slits affect the results on the target (presence of an interference pattern or not).

The spooky action here is that even though we have changed the photon spin behavior after history was already written (either a particle enters through one of the slits or a wave passes through both slits) we seem to have rewritten history.

Remember that all of these changes to the photon also take place after it has already passed through the beam splitter. If the photon passed through the beam splitter as a wave, then that wave exits in both directions. If it passes as a photon (particle), then it can only take one path, as proven by its spin.

The photon can not "know" which behavior to take on (wave or particle) when it enters the beam splitter because the tagging has not yet been performed and the scrambling of the tagging has not been done or even if it will be performed.

It is as if there is some temporal link between past and present that creates a paradox.

At "C",the speed of the photon, time stands still.

Future,present, past are all one.

Our concept of causality vanishes with the freezing of time.

Still, it does seem as if something is playing the shell game with observers.

I was working on a Traveling Wave Tube one day and a scientist came by to chat. I asked him this question:

If time experience slows down to 0 or near 0 at or near the speed of light, and, the electrons leaving the cathode are traveling at this relativistic velocity, then, the distance from the cathode to the anode, from the electron's point of view and experience is also 0 or nearly 0. How does anything effect the electron over such a short distance? Isn't the cathode and the anode the same place from the electrons' perspective?

He said to me, "Don't ask me anymore questions" and walked away!

For a real trip into the Twilight Zone, look at this link: Counter-factual computing:

http://phys.org/news11087.html

Thanks for that link!

I decided long ago that if the whole shebang can't be brought together into one meaningful set of rules, then there must be something wrong with the theories and basic assumptions. I read, and discussed with Tom Campbell his Big TOE and in all my attempts to take it down, I have been convinced that the only way to resolve physics, quantum physics, and personal life experience is if all of matter and space are consciousness first as the basic first assumption.

The Two slit experiment is only one of the quantum effects that such a basis can explain. What I have found missing from Tom's TOE is what Tom refers to as "The Bootstrap". In analyzing this problem I realized that my Philosophy background was of more help that Tom's Physics background! The Grand Observer, assuming He is consciousness (basic assumption), is singular at the outset of the creation of the universe. In that state of being He is One Thing in the void. (Think of this as the pre-cursory universe prior to the Big Bang). What directions are there under these conditions? All directions away, would seem obvious, but in truth, the only space that exists can not be found "Outside" the only existence! The only directions available to find anything is to look inward. As this happens, the space within expands to fill the events contained and observed within, and so the Big Bang is not an outward expansion so much as an inward expansion. The only substance, the only space, and the only experience that is truly possible in the "boot strap" condition is for consciousness to look within.

It turns out that the more you apply this thinking to the so-called quantum "anomalies" the more they make sense as the basic fundamental rules of the physical world. And two more fundamental rules pop out of the comparisons: 1) The law of Uniqueness - all events, places, particles, wave functions, every thing measurable can be similar, but at it's most fundamental level is entirely unique. and 2) the law of internal complexity - All fundamental particles are internally complex even though they appear to be fundamental and singular. There is no limit to the depths within any particle and the only limitations appear to be the ability to resolve. Case in point would be the enormous resolution of the LHC that has now revealed another level of complex particle existence)

With the basic assumption of consciousness and the bootstrap condition of internal vision of the Grand Observer, combined with the two laws just stated, all of the quantum anomalies can be explained, and all of the physics makes sense. Read Tom's books (My Big TOE) and then compare what he says to the bootstrap and laws I presented here and see for yourself.

You are right about the nature of the two-slit experiment but you have the actions backward. Without seeing the content of the slits a priori to seeing the pattern on the target, the target shows an interference pattern. When the content of the slits is known, then the pattern becomes two vertical lines.

The link is real. It is the link between the observer (the experimenter) and the particle and the apparatus that is an eXtension of the will and intent to see of the experimenter. There is no separation. All of the events occurred within a singular space-time within the Grand Observer. All aspects and all wave functions within the measurement are co-created and co-relevant at all "times" and "places". This is the only logical assumption that can explain the experimental results.

When all of the observable facts point in the direction of consciousness, why do we draw our minds away from it in order to "preserve" the purity of our physics? I think it is because to do otherwise is to have to admit to our connectedness with all things, and physics has been all about distance and removing of variables in experimentation. Unfortunately for the classical physicist, quantum physics makes this view impossible to ignore forever!

You may very well be right, but I try to keep mysticism out of the realm of science because such a hypothesis is untestable.

The same can be said about string theory and many would point out that is does not qualify as a science for that very reason.

Oh, by the way, a single "observed" photon will not make a double bar, but a single point on the target (either on the right or left).

I think we're dealing with Plato's Cave here. String Theory is nice, but at best it is only a mathmatical model, and the reality may be wiggling bits of quantum foam potentialities that just happen to stay what they are through the inertia of time's arrow. I've followed discussions on the nature of branes and the number of dimensions in string theory and I must admit scientists pushing their favorite flavor sounds a little like monks discussing the nature of the Holy Spirit. (Maybe the strings are teenie tiny angels in there doing really fast hot yoga.) The key is to continue to make predictions and see what the colliders tell us works, we must continually modify the science to fit our constantly-expanding ability to see things for ourselves.

Yes, the holographic universe is another fascinating spin on things.

We are like the blind men examining an elephant, each one certain of what they perceive as real;A tree, a snake,a pipe?

Point is, until the blind men get together, and combine their ideas, no matter how divergent they are from each other, we will not get the big picture.

We will never totally understand the universe,for if it was simple enough for us to understand it,we would be too simple to understand it.

And the obverse:

Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like.
After arguing they decided to find one and determine what
it was like by direct experience.
The first blind elephant felt the man and declared -
"Men are flat."
After all the blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." -Werner Heisenberg

There seems to be a flaw in the argument. The vessel's going down stream let's say with Velocity V. The water is also going down stream with Velocity W. The velocity relative to the bank is W + V. The relative motion of vessel is always V. As V tends to the flow velocity of the water, V tends to W and the velocity with respect to the bank tends to W + W = 2W.

Now, if the vessel were going upstream, opposing the river flow then, as the relative velocity approached the river flow, the vessel would approach the point where W - V = W - W = 0 and an observer on the bank would see the vessel motionless.

So you are saying that the bank is at 0 relative to the water and the vessel. Notice how there are three points of reference but only two in the equations! Most of physics is like this. The outside observer is very relevant but does not seem to be present in the equations, except in quantum physics...

Think of it as the difference between true air speed versus ground speed in an aircraft.

I once flew a sailplane into the wind. I was doing 45 mph into the wind (true air speed), but the wind was also 45 mph. Looking down from my aircraft I remained fixed over the same spot on the ground (ground speed was 0 mph).

The Lorentz transformation for time can be written as C^2 - S^2 = T^2 where C is the the speed of light, S is the speed of an object moving through space, and T is the speed at which the object is moving through time (how fast the object is aging). You can draw this as a right triangle where S and T are the legs and C is the hypotenuse. If Superman gets annoyed at his alarm clock and throws it across the solar system at 60% of the speed of light, a relatively stationary observer, watching the clock zip past him, would see that the hands are only moving 80% as fast as the hands on a stationary clock because 100^2 - 60^2 = 80^2. The vector sum of any object's motion through spacetime always equals the speed of light. Having time run backwards would not violate this equation, but we would not notice because our perception of time is determined by causality. From our point of view the cue ball still hits the eight ball even if someone arbitrarily calls this a negative time progression. Similarly, calling east positive and west negative does not mean that a westbound aircraft actually fly backwards. From the pilot's point of view time and airspeed are always positive.

Yes, but when is the last time you saw a splattered egg on the floor rise up and recombine into a whole egg in your hand?

Yes, you can reverse the equations of many of physics problems, entropy always flows from a low state to a higher value unless you apply energy to move from a state of disorder to one of order.

While the jury is still out, the prevailing theory to explain why glass shards on the roadway do not suddenly become headlights or those stubborn knots in corded phones become untangled is called decoherence histories. It may just resolve the age old dilemma between Einstein physics and the quantum world - or at least bring the two a step closer. I encourage you to do further study on the theory for your own satisfaction.

In quantum mechanics everything starts out as a probability wave, which is essentially all possibilities at once. However, when the one probability that takes shape happens, that wave collapses in to a point possibility, or at least appears to.

From what I understand, any disturbance in the probability wave will cause decoherence and thus, its collapse.

The one-way nature or arrow of time might be due to the collapse of the probability wave being a one-way street. That is, you can't take a definite possibility and then transform it into a infinite set of probabilities, which prevents time from going backwards.

The fact that so many of our classical physics equations treat time as a symmetrical agent in the equation does not necessarily mean that time is reversible. We can look at these equations as good approximations, just as Newton's equations of motion are good approximations for non-relativistic problems, but as we have learned with the work of Einstein there is more to the story.

The chasms between relativity and quantum mechanics may be that Einstein's equations are simply another very good approximation, but decoherence and probability waves, if all factors are accounted for, can more accurately describe events in the macro world as well as the quantum.

However, just like Newton's equations work well for almost all of our needs in motion, Einstein's equations are much more efficient to solve problems than attempting to use quantum physics as the next high powered hammer.

Lastly, the idea of decoherence has been around since the 1980s. There are those that feel it solves problems that have segregated relativity and the quantum world and there are those that feel it does not.