How About This For Accuracy!

[can't be sure]

... (Mind you, I can't be sure when or where...)

Perhaps uncertain would have been a better choice of words.  

An answer I hadn't thought of before: time moves at the speed of light. Until that is refined further, if it can be, I'll accept it as the answer.

Assume an object moves between Point A and Point B. A finite amount of time passes while the object moves from Point A to Point B. Speed up the object, and time still passes - but it is a smaller amount of time. How fast would the object have to be going between Points A and B for the amount of time it takes to be so small that it becomes pointless (impossible?) to measure it? When I was in high school a lot of the nerdy guys debated that question. I had never thought of the obvious answer until now: presumeably, nothing can move faster than the speed of light. Therefore, the object could not move between Point A and Point B any faster than the speed of light - which would consume some minimal amount of time. Therefore, the passage of time cannot be measured in any meaningful way into units smaller than the speed of light.

Of course, this is a nonsense argument (considering that it takes light nine minutes (eight?) to travel from the sun to the earth - which can certainly be subdivided). It just seemed to fall out, from Zemlin's statement, as a good answer to a question posed from a high schooler's level of understanding. Which is to say, an incomplete and incorrect understanding. Something inside of me still wants to think there is an answer to the question, tho: what is the speed of time?  How quickly is it passing by?

Time does not move ... Time only slips ...

Another existential statement???

Last time I slipped, I certainly moved.

OK - two clocks are synchronized.
One stays where you are - the other heads off on a light-speed vacation.  When the speedy clock returns, your clock shows that a lot of time has passed - the speedy clock shows that little time has passed.

Therefore, I say the "speed" of time is not finite - time passes as quickly as you do - or perhaps the inverse of that statement would actually be closer to the true answer.

I think we shouldn't hijack this thread so I will let this be my last post here about this subject.  But Zemlin's last post conjured up an interesting image in my mind.

Re. the clock off on the light-speed vacation: place it on a roomy rocket that is also travelling at the speed of light.  Put djwayne in that rocket with his new copy of AA 2.0 and a microphone.  I'll stay by the synchronized clock that is left behind - also with a copy of AA 2.0 and a microphone.  Assume that djwayne and I press record and start counting ... 1 one-thousand, 2 one-thousand, 3 one-thousand, and so on - for the length of the trip.  Further assume that our pressing record and counting are perfectly synchronized.

Upon return, the clock that stayed behind would show much time had passed.  The light-speed-travelling clock would show that little time had passed.  But what of the wav files recorded by myself and djwayne?  Again, assume that his and my actions were perfectly synchronized:  would our wave files be the same size?  Count the number of samples between each "1 one-thousand, 2 one-thousand, etc".  Would the number of samples between each of our "counts" be the same?

Or, put another way:  Assume djwayne's rocket left the sun at the head of a beam of light - all other things stay the same in the above example.  I'm standing on the earth and eight/nine minutes passes before that beam of light reaches me, as well as djwayne's rocket.  How many minutes was I recording "1 one thousand, 2 one thousand, 3 one thousand, etc"?  How many minutes was djwayne recording the same?  Did he really get to the earth in less time than eight/nine minutes?

Those questions are for thought only.  If someone wants to take a stab at answering them, courtesy suggests that they should probably start a new thread.

You ain't gettin me in no old rocketship, uh uhhh, nope, no way....


Rocketships blow up every once in awhile, nope, not me !!! I stay home and do my homework, I don't go flying around space in no rocketship, nope, nope, nope.

But what of the wav files recorded by myself and djwayne?  Again, assume that his and my actions were perfectly synchronized:  would our wave files be the same size?

No, yours would be longer.

Sorry DJ, but size does matter here.  

Maybe one more post ...

Let's put groucho out into space some distance so that he can see the sun and the earth.  He is stationary with respect to the sun and the earth (not moving towards or away from either) and can watch djwayne's entire trip from the sun to the earth. Let's assume groucho also has a microphone and AA 2.0, and has the ability to synchronize his actions with both djwayne and me.  At the downbeat, all three of us press record and start counting 1 one thousand, 2 one thousand, 3 one thousand, etc.  All three of us press stop at the same time - when djwayne and his lightbeam hit me on the earth.

Because groucho is stationary with respect to the sun and the earth, I assume he will stay in synch with me.  If the theory referred to by zemlin and alanofoz is right, groucho should become out of synch with djwayne.  Or, because he can see and hear both of us counting, perhaps he would choose to stay in synch with djwayne rather than me.  Which would mean he would need to slow down his counting?  But he couldn't slow down his computer.

If djwayne's wav file is smaller than mine, is it because he didn't count to as high a number as I did (because he didn't have time to)?  It is odd how djwayne's file could be smaller than mine (and groucho's if he stayed in synch with me), considering that groucho had eye and ear contact from the sun to the earth, and groucho theoretically recorded the entire time djwayne did.  If djwayne's clock slowed down, then I suppose his computer slowed down, as did his speech (hmmm).  So fewer bits and bytes were recorded to the HD for a given period of grouch's and my time - which would explain the smaller file. Groucho could match djwayne's speed of counting simply by slowing himself down.  But he wouldn't be able to slow his computer down to match djwayne's - and so his file would be the same size as mine?  He just would not have counted to as high a number as I did.  Interesting stuff.

Nope, no rocketship for me..... even if you did do that the rocketship would melt from the heat of the sun, and you wouldn't get any recording.

[absolute]

Well, I'm a lapsed theoretical physicist, so I've forgotten all this stuff.  But the  problem here is the use of the word "synchronised".  IIRC, the principle of relativity means there is no absolute reference frame where you can say these clock ticks are synchronised.  Therefore, what appears to synchronised in one reference frame, is not synchronised in a different reference frame.  Simultaneity (and the lack of it) is the word I recall from all the reference books.

[can't be sure]

... (Mind you, I can't be sure when or where...)

Perhaps uncertain would have been a better choice of words.  

Only if you want it to be blatently obvious...

Subtlety is all when it comes to the time/space continuum. And there's a good chance that it's more complicated than we currently realise.

Subtlety is all when it comes to the time/space continuum. And there's a good chance that it's more complicated than we currently realise.

Like is it actually a continuum or is it all just a quantum foam?

Subtlety is all when it comes to the time/space continuum. And there's a good chance that it's more complicated than we currently realise.

Like is it actually a continuum or is it all just a quantum foam?

Nobody's actually detected the 'quantum foam' yet, have they? It's all in the mind...

Like is it actually a continuum or is it all just a quantum foam?

Both... or either.

I don't pretend to fully understand the explanations. I see what I see, and I expect to see a marker that is dead on, nothing will change my mind about that.

That's a bit like saying you want your car to be exactly where the digital odometer says it is.

How can you get from mile 100.0 to mile 100.1 without being between those two points?  What do you expect your odometer to display when you are at 100.02?

How can your digital clock be perfectly accurate?  I'm afraid time still passes between ticks of the display.

This is ridiculous and you know it. The time displayed in the image is exactly 55 minutes, not a little after, not a little before, it is exactly 55:00. You are talking about something else.