What is Time?

[little_monkey]

Then how do we come to a non-relative age for the universe?

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a non-relative time. All times are measured within a frame of reference. Different observers will disagree as to their measurements of time. But that is not the whole story. They will also disagree on the distances they measure, BUT when they compare the interval s² = c²t² - x², they will all agree. For a given event, the quantity s is what will be the same in every frame of reference.

[seer]

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a non-relative time. All times are measured within a frame of reference. Different observers will disagree as to their measurements of time. But that is not the whole story. They will also disagree on the distances they measure, BUT when they compare the interval s² = c²t² - x², they will all agree. For a given event, the quantity s is what will be the same in every frame of reference.

OK, then how can we have a fixed age (generally) for the universe? We say that the universe is about 13 billion years old, but from what frame of reference do we conclude that? And I'm not sure what your formula means.

[JonF]

Interesting question. It's relative to a coordinate system in which the universe appears isotropic; in which the cosmic ray background is not systemically blue-shifted or red-shifted in any direction. Comoving coordinates

Or it's not relative to a reference frame at all it's just an event. I totally don't understand but see.Is the universe 13 billion years old only from our frame of reference or from all frame of references?.

Real understanding probably requires math I haven't done in 40 years, so I'll be no help in further investigation.

[Truthseeker]

SR has mass, velocity, energy as key concepts. I think to show a completely different model, we need completely different key concepts, or elementary things. There are at least 3 different masses (inertial, gravitational and energy). Now by experimant I hope I see: waves and particles are not elementary. Usual motion and speed concepts are not elementary either. Maybe increase number of spatial dimensions at least by 1 and get SR as a projection of our new model, organically? (Eg, to place a thing into a closed 3D room, the room should be open in 4D. ) Also increase number of time dimensions by 1. (In order to travel in time you have to have at least 2 time dimensions, or else time will run backwards for you while you travel). Speed of light is just an illusional speed, similar to the speed of visible connection points between 2 planes falling at each other. I know by mathematician experiment, that there are infinite number of 2D pictures in the world. A photo of you in front of a building, a painting of ocean, a photo of a main building in your town without you... Each painting is good. We can feel only large complicated systems by man-made detectors. I think this is because we can't rule our natural detectors, but instead, those detectors are usually one way detectors, to rule us. You can receive thought, but can't emit it whereever you want, by will, at least I can't.

X6_ is banned, right? Were you x6_? I am going to report thismatter to a moderator.

[JimL]

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a non-relative time. All times are measured within a frame of reference. Different observers will disagree as to their measurements of time. But that is not the whole story. They will also disagree on the distances they measure, BUT when they compare the interval s² = c²t² - x², they will all agree. For a given event, the quantity s is what will be the same in every frame of reference.

But it isn't time thats changing, it isn't space that is changing, its the manner in which space and time are being measured that is changing. No?

[klaus54]

SR has mass, velocity, energy as key concepts. I think to show a completely different model, we need completely different key concepts, or elementary things. There are at least 3 different masses (inertial, gravitational and energy). Now by experimant I hope I see: waves and particles are not elementary. Usual motion and speed concepts are not elementary either. Maybe increase number of spatial dimensions at least by 1 and get SR as a projection of our new model, organically? (Eg, to place a thing into a closed 3D room, the room should be open in 4D. ) Also increase number of time dimensions by 1. (In order to travel in time you have to have at least 2 time dimensions, or else time will run backwards for you while you travel). Speed of light is just an illusional speed, similar to the speed of visible connection points between 2 planes falling at each other. I know by mathematician experiment, that there are infinite number of 2D pictures in the world. A photo of you in front of a building, a painting of ocean, a photo of a main building in your town without you... Each painting is good. We can feel only large complicated systems by man-made detectors. I think this is because we can't rule our natural detectors, but instead, those detectors are usually one way detectors, to rule us. You can receive thought, but can't emit it whereever you want, by will, at least I can't.

Do you have a webpage or a publication to which you can link that fleshes out your model?

Does your model explain every phenomenon that SR and GR do?

[klaus54]

But it isn't time thats changing, it isn't space that is changing, its the manner in which space and time are being measured that is changing. No?

Yes. Lorentz invariance. The spacetime metric ds^2 is the same when measured in any inertial reference frame.

[klaus54]

Interesting question. It's relative to a coordinate system in which the universe appears isotropic; in which the cosmic ray background is not systemically blue-shifted or red-shifted in any direction. Comoving coordinates

Or it's not relative to a reference frame at all it's just an event. I totally don't understand but see.Is the universe 13 billion years old only from our frame of reference or from all frame of references?.

Real understanding probably requires math I haven't done in 40 years, so I'll be no help in further investigation.

Doesn't the age follow from ds^2 being the same in any inertial frame, and that the light from even the most distant visible galaxies travels on lightlike paths (ds^2 = 0)? So if the space distance can be measured then the time interval can be calculated?

[little_monkey]

But it isn't time thats changing, it isn't space that is changing, its the manner in which space and time are being measured that is changing. No?

The "manner" of measuring space and time is the same in all frame of reference: all observers will use clocks for time and rulers for space. You can standardize so that they all use equipment of the same quality. It's when they measure an event from the perspective of their own frames of reference that they will get different results: they will measure different t's and different x's, but they will all agree on s.

[yui1]

Do you have a webpage or a publication to which you can link that fleshes out your model?

Does your model explain every phenomenon that SR and GR do?

No, I don't. I heard there are plenty of competitors already. Some of them are even trying to be fundamental models. Let's see what we can do we the new models in 100 or more years. It is interesting.

X6_ is banned, right? Were you x6_? I am going to report thismatter to a moderator.

It's ok. I use 10 minute temporal emails and 1-time password, so loose my account immediately when close the browser window. So I have to register again and again. Anyways, even having 1 account doesn't mean only one person uses it. So you have to use supernatural powers to know, who is talking with you, always. It is just more evident with 1-time accounts.

[klaus54]

No, I don't. I heard there are plenty of competitors already. Some of them are even trying to be fundamental models. Let's see what we can do we the new models in 100 or more years. It is interesting.

Each of these models would need to explain all the phenomena that SR and GR do.

For example, each would have to pass all of Einstein's predictions about GR:

http://discovermagazine.com/2015/apr...ty-to-the-test