You are Here: Home >< Physics

# Struggling to understand time?

Announcements Posted on
TSR's new app is coming! Sign up here to try it first >> 17-10-2016
1. Hello can you help me understand which clock and time is running slower?

Clock A - 1 cycle per second

Clock B - 2 cycles per second

Clock C - 3 cycles per second

Which time is a slower rate?
2. (Original post by AlbertXY)
Hello can you help me understand which clock and time is running slower?

Clock A - 1 cycle per second

Clock B - 2 cycles per second

Clock C - 3 cycles per second

Which time is a slower rate?
How long is a cycle at 1c/s? 2c/s? 3c/s?

C'mon.
3. (Original post by Tootles)
How long is a cycle at 1c/s? 2c/s? 3c/s?

C'mon.
What do you mean how long is a cycle?

Surely you mean how long is a second?
4. (Original post by AlbertXY)
What do you mean how long is a cycle?

Surely you mean how long is a second?
No, I have a definition for a second's length, and you have your lengths of each cycle.
5. (Original post by Tootles)
No, I have a definition for a second's length, and you have your lengths of each cycle.
I don't have a length of each cycle, each cycle is related to the speed of the cycle,

if you can imagine a single ''hand'' of a clock rotating at a speed around a clock face,

Clock A = 1 rotation per second

Clock b = 2 rotation per second

Clock c= 3 rotation per second

Now if these clocks were on different reference frames, (simultaneity) , I still do not know which clock represents time running slower, because the length of the second is a fixed constant.

Only if I ''cheat'' and shorten the length of a second for each different clock, could I get a result of time slowing down, which would still be a false result.
6. (Original post by AlbertXY)
I don't have a length of each cycle, each cycle is related to the speed of the cycle,

if you can imagine a single ''hand'' of a clock rotating at a speed around a clock face,

Clock A = 1 rotation per second

Clock b = 2 rotation per second

Clock c= 3 rotation per second

Now if these clocks were on different reference frames, (simultaneity) , I still do not know which clock represents time running slower, because the length of the second is a fixed constant.

Only if I ''cheat'' and shorten the length of a second for each different clock, could I get a result of time slowing down, which would still be a false result.
OK, I should have said duration of each cycle.

1c/s = 1s cycle.
2c/s = 0.5s cycle.
3c/s = 0.3's cycle.

Basic primary school mathematics, given the duration of 1s being a constant.

This being the case, you can't infer time flowing at different rates unless you want to start pissing about with relativity, and I'nt got time fo' dat.

If you know which clock is running at which rate, you can calculate the duration of each respective second easily enough using nuclear decay, using the same definition that that of the second uses.
7. [QUOTE=Tootles;66527046

This being the case, you can't infer time flowing at different rates

.[/QUOTE]

Yes , exactly that, no need to mess about with relativity because this shows relativity to be incorrect.

You cant infer time flows at different rates, if you shorten a second you in affect speed up the measurement . A clock finger takes less time to travel a shorter distance, half the distance, twice the speed.

Contracting distance is greater relative speed like two cars in a head on smash.

If both cars are travelling at 30 mph towards each other, the space between the cars contracts at 60 mph relatively.
8. (Original post by AlbertXY)
Hello can you help me understand which clock and time is running slower?

Clock A - 1 cycle per second

Clock B - 2 cycles per second

Clock C - 3 cycles per second

Which time is a slower rate?
In the context of relativity, time dilation has a different sense to our every day time scale. We usually think of a clock running slower as passing a less time, but in relativity this is the exact opposite because time is measured by the stationary frame of reference with respect to other frames. So, in your examples, clock A would be running slower but the second must be our time of reference with respect to which other time are measured.
9. (Original post by Absent Agent)
In the context of relativity, time dilation has a different sense to our every day time scale. We usually think of a clock running slower as passing a less time, but in relativity this is the exact opposite because time is measured by the stationary frame of reference with respect to other frames. So, in your examples, clock A would be running slower but the second must be our time of reference with respect to which other time are measured.
In my example none of the clocks would be running slower, because per second remains a second.

1 cycle or two cycles a second does not alter the duration of the second.

For example and simplicity of numbers , let me define 10 cycles is equal to 1 second.

Now if we then measured 5 cycles, 5 cycles would be equal to 0.5 seconds,

If you was to shorten the length of something by half, you do not have a time dilation, you have half a second.

If you had 9192631770 cycles = 1 second and was to then get a different measurement of half that, time is not slowing down, the cycles are just slower than previous.
10. (Original post by AlbertXY)
In my example none of the clocks would be running slower, because per second remains a second.

1 cycle or two cycles a second does not alter the duration of the second.

For example and simplicity of numbers , let me define 10 cycles is equal to 1 second.

Now if we then measured 5 cycles, 5 cycles would be equal to 0.5 seconds,

If you was to shorten the length of something by half, you do not have a time dilation, you have half a second.

If you had 9192631770 cycles = 1 second and was to then get a different measurement of half that, time is not slowing down, the cycles are just slower than previous.
That's only true when all the clocks are in one uniformly moving frame of reference. Time dilation is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light in different reference frames.
11. (Original post by Absent Agent)
That's only true when all the clocks are in one uniformly moving frame of reference. Time dilation is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light in different reference frames.
I do not understand why you are bringing the constant of light into this, the speed of light is not related to time?
12. (Original post by AlbertXY)
I do not understand why you are bringing the constant of light into this, the speed of light is not related to time?
Time is affected by how fast objects are moving
13. (Original post by AlbertXY)
I do not understand why you are bringing the constant of light into this, the speed of light is not related to time?
I don't bring it, we should bring it. This is because since experiments found that the speed of life is constant regardless of how fast the source of light is moving, and that there is a direct relationship between speed, time, and distance, we need to incorporate the speed of light into uniformly-moving reference frames so as to derive the consequences in terms of time and distance for that reference frame with respect to an observant frame. In Einstein's own words;

"After seven years of reflection in vain ( 1898-1905), the solution came to me suddenly with the thought that our concepts of space and time can only claim validity insofar as they stand in a clear relation to our experiences; and that experience could very well lead to the alteration of these concepts and laws. By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form, I thus arrived at the special theory of relativity."
14. (Original post by Absent Agent)
I don't bring it, we should bring it. This is because since experiments found that the speed of life is constant regardless of how fast the source of light is moving, and that there is a direct relationship between speed, time, and distance, we need to incorporate the speed of light into uniformly-moving reference frames so as to derive the consequences in terms of time and distance for that reference frame with respect to an observant frame. In Einstein's own words;

"After seven years of reflection in vain ( 1898-1905), the solution came to me suddenly with the thought that our concepts of space and time can only claim validity insofar as they stand in a clear relation to our experiences; and that experience could very well lead to the alteration of these concepts and laws. By a revision of the concept of simultaneity into a more malleable form, I thus arrived at the special theory of relativity."

After several years of harsh comments and finding ones own mind, the solution came to me over time rather than a sudden enlightenment. Einstein would have appreciated that time was like a ''rod'' , continuous with no spacing between the next increment.
A constant, that any attempt of measurement no matter how infinitesimally small or whatever the speed of measurement , would become an instantaneous increment of the length of history.
One could believe that one could travel faster than time, but one would be mistaken because time is always with the observer in the instance and can never be overtook, time can only be left behind in the form of history no matter what what the velocity of the observer is.
We simply can not define a constant of time then ignore its precedence altering the perspective of the constant by inferring time dilation ''illusions'' that do not exist in the state of reality.
15. Is your argument this time, that time is not affected by speed.
16. (Original post by mphysical)
Is your argument this time, that time is not affected by speed.
No, but time is not affected by speed, do not mistake cycles which is a rate of something related to the caesium which is not related to time.

I am presently working on the relationship of magnetic field distortions of the magnets in the Caesium clock and the permitivity of the field strength being a possibility for the change in rate of the Caesium beam, but this is still unrelated to real time but rather a possible design flaw,

DO NOT MISTAKE A REPRESENTATION OF TIME IN BEING THE REAL DEAL OF TIME!
17. (Original post by AlbertXY)
No, but time is not affected by speed, do not mistake cycles which is a rate of something related to the caesium which is not related to time.

I am presently working on the relationship of magnetic field distortions of the magnets in the Caesium clock and the permitivity of the field strength being a possibility for the change in rate of the Caesium beam, but this is still unrelated to real time but rather a possible design flaw,

DO NOT MISTAKE A REPRESENTATION OF TIME IN BEING THE REAL DEAL OF TIME!
Time is affected by speed and I am not mistaking anything.
The rest of your post I do not believe because I know you have no formal education in physics.
18. Oh my goodness not this again. You have already been informed in every other thread you have made about what we know, and you completely and irrationally reject any knowledge we present to you. Please stop.
19. (Original post by mphysical)
Time is affected by speed and I am not mistaking anything.
The rest of your post I do not believe because I know you have no formal education in physics.
''Poppy cock'', you are clearly mistaken and trying to materialise time by the representation of time in the form of the Caesium cycles.

Admittedly I have no formal ''education'', but that does not inhibit my ability to consider ''things''.

There is clearly magnetic fields involved inside the Caesium clock, it is not hard to consider the possible affects of the Earths magnetic field on the field of the magnets in the clock. Clearly you do not understand magnetic field polarity and compass needles which tend to ''point'' a certain direction.
20. (Original post by The-Spartan)
Oh my goodness not this again. You have already been informed in every other thread you have made about what we know, and you completely and irrationally reject any knowledge we present to you. Please stop.
Try being objective and consider the knowledge I am explaining to you. STOP trying to dictate your theories to me which I already know, repetition of present theory does not answer my queries about the present theories.

## Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
1. this can't be left blank
2. this can't be left blank
3. this can't be left blank

6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

4. this can't be left empty
1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register

Updated: August 8, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Today on TSR

### How does exam reform affect you?

From GCSE to A level, it's all changing

### Who would you like to thank?

Poll
Study resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.