Objective Time is the underlying, universal flow that synchronizes all events across the entire universe. — Echogem222
These effects have been measured and confirmed through experiments like atomic clocks on airplanes and GPS satellites in orbit. — Echogem222
This is wrong. Per the first postulate of SR, physics experienced is normal regardless of frame or motion. That means nobody experiences time dilationtime dilation, where time appears to slow down for an observer traveling at high speeds or near a massive object. — Echogem222
Wrong. Speed of light is not a valid reference. Really, understand the theory before attempting to debunk it.In special relativity, the faster an object moves relative to the speed of light
There are alternate theories about objective time, with the universe contained by time. They use different postulates than the ones Einstein proposed. Things that Einstein predicts (big bang, black holes and such) do not exist under such an absolute theory. Your mention of them in your post means you're presuming Einstein's theory. Can't do that if you're going to deny it all.True Objective Time:
Yes, that's what it says. It also totally fails to say how fast undilated time goes, so it still comes down to .... relativity.- Objective Time is the underlying, universal flow that synchronizes all events across the entire universe.
- It’s not tied to any specific perception, location, or environment—it just is.
This is wrong. The subjective experience is the same no matter where you are, even in an absolute theory. If not true, then all the theories (including the objective ones) get falsified.- Different places in the universe, due to different conditions (speed, gravity, etc.), have different subjective experiences of time.
No clock requires subjectivity to operate. They do just fine when nobody is looking at them.The clocks we use, whether on Earth or in space, are still limited by our subjective experience of time.
Slowed down. The GPS clocks for instance run artificially slow to compensate for less time dilation at that altitude.In space, if clocks were artificially sped up to match Earth’s time
What you call objective time cannot be measured by any means. If it could, we'd know how old the universe really was, and we could know something other than just relative time.Objective Time refers to the true, universal flow that keeps everything synchronized, independent of where you are or how fast you’re moving.
The strength in Einstein's theory lies in mathematics. Guess which wins?The strength of this theory lies in logical reasoning.
Objective time, like the speed of light, isn't a perspective. 'Objective time' hasn't a location any more than does light speed.From the perspective of objective time
I thought time (the one you're speeding up) was the objective time. How can it both speed up and stop?Here’s the crucial point: If a being’s awareness of time speeds up to infinity, it would freeze objective time entirely.
is great, that I'm not the only one who realized this. — Echogem222
Um, there seems some things unclear here. In my spaceship, no matter how fast I'm going, or how I change speed, my clock always runs at the same rate. if it didn't, then my clock would also be my speedometer - which it isn't, and does not happen. Two clocks in motion relative to each other run at different speeds, but that's in comparison to each other.n special relativity, the faster an object moves relative to the speed of light, the slower time passes for that object. In general relativity, the closer an object is to a source of gravity, the slower time appears to pass due to the warping of spacetime. — Echogem222
No clock requires subjectivity to operate. They do just fine when nobody is looking at them. — noAxioms
The plant pot appears broken in the picture — javi2541997
Bergson insisted that duration proper cannot be measured. To measure something – such as volume, length, pressure, weight, speed or temperature – we need to stipulate the unit of measurement in terms of a standard. For example, the standard metre was once stipulated to be the length of a particular 100-centimetre-long platinum bar kept in Paris. It is now defined by an atomic clock measuring the length of a path of light travelling in a vacuum over an extremely short time interval. In both cases, the standard metre is a measurement of length that itself has a length. The standard unit exemplifies the property it measures.
In Time and Free Will, Bergson argued that this procedure would not work for duration. For duration to be measured by a clock, the clock itself must have duration. It must exemplify the property it is supposed to measure. To examine the measurements involved in clock time, Bergson considers an oscillating pendulum, moving back and forth. At each moment, the pendulum occupies a different position in space, like the points on a line or the moving hands on a clockface. In the case of a clock, the current state – the current time – is what we call ‘now’. Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct. But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession. Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time. — Clock Time Contra Lived Time, Evan Thompson
Isn't it impossible to build any knowledge (or understanding) of anything from 'scratch'? By which it is understood from no basis of knowing (or believing) anything else at all. — kazan
With reflection,a bit logically,rationally and absolutistically illogical, irrational and too all encompassing, don't you think? — kazan
And may not help bring waivering audiences over to your thinking in regards the OP. If that is your intention? — kazan
I can only say that I agree with Bergson, yet I can't find proper words to endorse that effectively we are the ones who measure time, and not the clocks. — javi2541997
as you put it. There is a post I made about this, but it requires reading my solution to the liar's paradox first, but that post can be read here: https://medium.com/@echogem222b/actions-speak-more-clearly-than-words-cbb84de42422internal dictionary and modality ratios — punos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.