Is time a constant?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you saying GPS system satellites should not need to compensate for time shifts due to changes in gravitational force or velocity? Are you denying these things actually happen?

I'm saying compensation should be done, but I don't think it is for
the reasons you are suggesting.
Kelly

Originally posted by jekeckel
A snapshot of time will have them where they are. But your original question was about whether or not time is a constant. The rate at which time passes for different reference frames is different, so it is not constant.

A snap shot of time would have them where they were at the moment
of the snap shot correct? That would mean all things? No matter what
the rate or the forces being applied, everything would stop where they
were at the point of the snap shot, and that would be the same point
in time for all things, would it not? If that is not true, could I hear why?
Kelly

Originally posted by jekeckel
The force of gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Time is "changed" due to this curvature.

I have heard that said, and we know it is time not our ablities to
deal within the force of gravity with our limited skills sets? If everything
stopped even those things within the gravity fields no matter how
powerful, they would simply stop where they were at that moment
and that moment is shared by everything else. To me that suggests
that it really isn't time that has changed, simply the items going
through powerful gravity fields.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying compensation should be done, but I don't think it is for
the reasons you are suggesting.
Kelly

Would be interesting to know what other reasons there are for compensating, in your opinion?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why bother writing anything if all you have to say on a topic where your
opinion is being asked for is go read something? I mean seriously, at
least present a thought on the topic.
Kelly

This is not about opinion. The question in your OP has been answered, but you don't appear to be particularly interested in the answer.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
This is not about opinion. The question in your OP has been answered, but you don't appear to be particularly interested in the answer.

I'm interested in the reasons behind the answers, the root causes, the
whys. Simply saying this is true is not enough, simply saying go read
a book is not an opinion either. When the answer simply has a level
of trust being given to reading a clock that could have been
compromised by the very forces it was being subjected too, does not
mean time itself has been. Especially since we know that many of our
other devices can have their timing thrown off by stress like some
thermo or mechanical reasons just to name a couple.

What I believe is being suggested is that time is like temperature
where we can see that water can be hotter or colder in different places
within some body of water all at once, so time can be faster or slower
in different places all at once.

What if time were static? Every period of time passes everywhere and
all of those moments would be shared by all things the same way! It
still would not at all change facts that all things are NOT behaving the
same way at all times due to the stresses they find themselves
subjected to. If we were measuring for example a sphere, seeing
three dimensions of the sphere change, does not mean that distance
itself has changed due to some stress, we would just say the sphere
changed in size. If time is static in that it does not change at all even
a little bit, those changes we are seeing need to be examined again.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying compensation should be done, but I don't think it is for
the reasons you are suggesting.
Kelly

What are the real reasons then?

This is a frustrating thread 🙂 A given real world application (GPS satellites) of time and Relativity and yet no comprehension or a dismissal of given facts. Still Good thread.




Manny

Originally posted by KellyJay
A snap shot of time would have them where they were at the moment
of the snap shot correct? That would mean all things? No matter what
the rate or the forces being applied, everything would stop where they
were at the point of the snap shot, and that would be the same point
in time for all things, would it not? If that is not true, could I hear why?
Kelly

This is correct.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have heard that said, and we know it is time not our ablities to
deal within the force of gravity with our limited skills sets? If everything
stopped even those things within the gravity fields no matter how
powerful, they would simply stop where they were at that moment
and that moment is shared by everything else. To me that suggests
that it really isn't time that has changed, simply the items going
through powerful gravity fields.
Kelly

You're free to your beliefs. But know that they contradicts nearly 100 years of established science.

I'm interested in the reasons behind the answers, the root causes, the
whys. Simply saying this is true is not enough, simply saying go read
a book is not an opinion either.

You will not get a sufficient answer on a forum. This matter really is entrenched in deep physics and mathematics. This is not something that can easily be shown on a forum. Thorne, Misner, and Wheeler have dedicated a 1000+ page time explaining the intricacies of gravitational theory. This is just one book explicating the subject, and I would suggest you read it (or something similar if you prefer) if you have a sufficient mathematical background, and you are interested in the real reasons why the theory is interpreted as it is. The answers that you are looking for are better expressed in the language of mathematics, rather than English.

When the answer simply has a level
of trust being given to reading a clock that could have been
compromised by the very forces it was being subjected too, does not
mean time itself has been.

Presumably you understand that physical laws are invariant in any inertial reference frame. This would mean that there are no extra forces acting on any clock in an inertial reference frame. Physics, and measurements will be precisely the same in an object moving away from you at a constant velocity as they would be here on Earth.

Especially since we know that many of our
other devices can have their timing thrown off by stress like some
thermo or mechanical reasons just to name a couple.

In an inertial reference frame, no thermo, or mechanical stresses are being applied unless you deliberately choose to apply them in that frame.

so time can be faster or slower
in different places all at once.

In different reference frames, not mere translation.

What if time were static? Every period of time passes everywhere and
all of those moments would be shared by all things the same way

Then the universe would be a much stranger place.

It
still would not at all change facts that all things are NOT behaving the
same way at all times due to the stresses they find themselves
subjected to

Once again, time dilation is not contingent on any external force being applied to the device.

If we were measuring for example a sphere, seeing
three dimensions of the sphere change, does not mean that distance
itself has changed due to some stress, we would just say the sphere
changed in size.

Please clarify.


If time is static in that it does not change at all even
a little bit, those changes we are seeing need to be examined again.

It has been well established that time is not static. I would suggest going outside of a chess forum, and reading a fraction of the plethora of papers and books that exist dealing with this subject.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Is time a constant or does it change?
How do we know?
Kelly

Time is relative.
However, your question cannot truly be answered unless we can define time - and understand that definition and its implications.
Although as humans we imaging some sort of flow of time and can imagine it going faster or slower or being constant with only our measuring devices changing, the truth of the matter is that what we call time and what we sense about time is what we measure and not some actual entity independent of our measurements.
What I am saying is that if as you propose in one of your posts, time is actually constant and it is the measuring devices that change in certain circumstances, then in those circumstances where all possible devices apparently run faster, then a scientist would say that time is running faster because time to a scientist is what is measured.
If times true flow is independent of measurement, then it becomes somewhat meaningless and irrelevant. For example, if time is really running ten times faster than we believe, but due to earths gravity we are all going ten times slower than 'normal' then who cares what times 'true speed' really is?
The fact of the matter is that every single known physical law that relates to time is affected in such a way that the time on GPS satellites is effectively different from that of objects on the surface of the earth. If there is something that remains constant between us and the GPS satelites that you choose to call 'time', then as far as science is concerned it is not measurable and is irrelevant.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm interested in the reasons behind the answers, the root causes, the
whys. Simply saying this is true is not enough, simply saying go read
a book is not an opinion either. When the answer simply has a level
of trust being given to reading a clock that could have been
compromised by the very forces it was being subjected too, does not
mean time itself ...[text shortened]... change at all even
a little bit, those changes we are seeing need to be examined again.
Kelly

The speed of light is constant in every intertial frame of reference. Why? I don't know. No one does, in fact. It's just something we see when we look at nature, and it fits in nicely with laws of nature, mathematically. This is how physics works.

Originally posted by amolv06
You're free to your beliefs. But know that they contradicts nearly 100 years of established science.

Get it straight, I am free to question nearly 100 years of established science if
that is not true, you are no longer dealing with science but religion.
Kelly

Originally posted by amolv06
This is correct.

So if a snap shot has everything sharing the same moment why isn't time
a constant again?
Kelly