• Echogem222
    92
    Einstein’s Theory of Time:
    Einstein’s theory of relativity fundamentally changed how we think about time. In his model, time is not absolute—it’s relative to the observer's motion or gravitational environment. This leads to phenomena like time dilation, where time appears to slow down for an observer traveling at high speeds or near a massive object.

    In 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. These effects have been measured and confirmed through experiments like atomic clocks on airplanes and GPS satellites in orbit.



    Why This View Is Flawed:
    While Einstein’s theory accurately predicts the effects of time dilation and the role gravity plays, it relies on the assumption that time itself is changing. But what if the slowing of time isn’t due to time itself bending or stretching, but rather how we experience time under different conditions? This creates a key misunderstanding: what Einstein describes might not be time in the truest sense, but rather subjective time—a localized, perceptual phenomenon based on the observer’s environment.

    Now, let's redefine this concept with a deeper distinction between true objective time and the subjective time Einstein's theory touches on:

    True Objective Time:

    - 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 universal time is why, despite different subjective experiences of time (due to speed, gravity, etc.), all events in the universe remain connected and in sync. This is the true objective nature of time, which underlies everything.

    Subjective Time (Including on Earth):

    - Even what we think of as time on Earth is still subjective because it’s only how we experience time within the specific conditions of Earth (gravity, motion, etc.).

    - Different places in the universe, due to different conditions (speed, gravity, etc.), have different subjective experiences of time. This is why we see things like time dilation in relativity—it's not time itself changing, but our subjective experience of it changing.

    Why It’s All Connected:

    - Despite the differences in subjective time at different locations (Earth, space, near black holes, etc.), the true objective time flows uniformly throughout the universe, keeping everything in sync. This is why events everywhere are connected, even if the subjective experience of time is different.

    Refinement of the Clock Idea:

    - The clocks we use, whether on Earth or in space, are still limited by our subjective experience of time.

    - In space, if clocks were artificially sped up to match Earth’s time, they would still only reflect the subjective time of Earth or space, not the objective nature of time itself, which transcends all local perceptions.

    The Core:

    - Objective Time refers to the true, universal flow that keeps everything synchronized, independent of where you are or how fast you’re moving.

    - Subjective Time (whether on Earth or in space) is how we experience that universal flow in our specific conditions, but it’s not the ultimate truth of time itself.

    Why Believe My Theory of Time Instead?

    The strength of this theory lies in logical reasoning. On Earth, we experience what we consider to be the "normal" flow of time. When we observe that time moves more slowly in space (through experiments or calculations), we are logically aware of a different subjective time at play. But here's the key: we can still observe that slower flow of time and recognize it as different from our own.

    If time itself were actually moving slower in that other location (space, near black holes, etc.), we wouldn’t be able to logically perceive the difference. From the perspective of objective time, everything in that location would appear to move normally. We would lack the ability to understand that time was moving differently at all because we would be experiencing that altered time as our baseline. In other words, the very fact that we can observe and measure a difference in time flow shows that what we’re seeing is a subjective experience of time, not time itself.

    This theory allows for the possibility of thinking logically about time, recognizing when time appears to move differently, and explaining those differences through subjective time—while objective time continues to flow uniformly and keeps all events in sync across the universe.



    How to freeze time: The Infinite Reaction Time of Objective Time

    To illustrate the distinction between subjective time and objective time even further, consider the following thought experiment: A fly’s reaction time is much faster than a human’s, making time seem slower for the fly. Now, imagine a being whose reaction time is infinitely fast.

    Here’s the crucial point: If a being’s awareness of time speeds up to infinity, it would freeze objective time entirely. If someone has a super fast awareness of time for 5 minutes, then you could argue that it would just take a really long subjective time for that person to get to the end of those 5 minutes like a normal person can. But if they had an infinitely fast awareness of time, then they would never reach the end of those 5 minutes since it would stretch on for infinity (i.e. frozen time), so therefore yourself reaching the end of those 5 minutes would logically contradict their awareness of time being frozen.



    Added explanation for those who still don't get it:
    Imagine two people start at the same point in time, both with the same awareness or perception of time. Then, these two individuals go their separate ways, experiencing different physical conditions that alter their subjective awareness of time. After some time, they return to the same location, and their awareness of time becomes synchronized again.

    Now, let’s introduce a third person who observes the entire process. This observer notices that even though the two people experienced time differently while apart, they are back in sync once reunited. From the third person’s perspective, it becomes clear that only their awareness of time changed, not time itself. In other words, time did not bend or stretch; instead, their individual experiences of time were affected by their different environments.

    Now, let’s consider another situation where events themselves slow down along with the individuals' awareness of time—maybe they are in a region of space where everything seems to be happening more slowly. The third observer would still not conclude that time itself had slowed down. Instead, they would reason that these individuals are in an environment (like an energy field or gravitational influence) that is slowing down both the events and their perception of time. The observer, who has a broader perspective, knows that Objective Time—the constant, underlying flow of time—has not changed. It’s just that this particular environment has affected the individuals' subjective experience of time.

    This highlights the value of Objective Time: it allows us to understand how everything remains connected and synchronized, even when different observers experience time differently.

    When we hear about time slowing down in extreme environments, such as near a black hole, we understand that subjective awareness of time might differ—time might seem to pass more slowly for an individual in that environment. However, from the perspective of Objective Time, we realize that the flow of time itself hasn’t actually slowed. It’s just that the person in that environment is unaware of the full passage of time due to their altered perception.

    In summary:
    - Time itself remains constant (Objective Time), keeping everything connected.
    - Changes in time perception are due to changes in awareness of time, not time itself.
    - From a third-person perspective, it’s clear that environmental factors (like gravity or motion) affect awareness, but they don’t alter the fundamental flow of time.
  • T Clark
    13.9k


    Even with my amateur's understanding of Einstein's physics, this is clearly wrong. The whole point of the relativity theories is that there is no objective time.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    Objective Time is the underlying, universal flow that synchronizes all events across the entire universe.Echogem222

    Do you have any grounds for saying that there is such a thing?

    These effects have been measured and confirmed through experiments like atomic clocks on airplanes and GPS satellites in orbit.Echogem222

    So then how can that be only ‘subjective’ as you seem to say?
  • noAxioms
    1.5k
    time dilation, where time appears to slow down for an observer traveling at high speeds or near a massive object.Echogem222
    This is wrong. Per the first postulate of SR, physics experienced is normal regardless of frame or motion. That means nobody experiences time dilation

    In special relativity, the faster an object moves relative to the speed of light
    Wrong. Speed of light is not a valid reference. Really, understand the theory before attempting to debunk it.

    True Objective Time:
    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.

    - 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.
    Yes, that's what it says. It also totally fails to say how fast undilated time goes, so it still comes down to .... relativity.

    - Different places in the universe, due to different conditions (speed, gravity, etc.), have different subjective experiences of time.
    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.

    The clocks we use, whether on Earth or in space, are still limited by our subjective experience of time.
    No clock requires subjectivity to operate. They do just fine when nobody is looking at them.

    In space, if clocks were artificially sped up to match Earth’s time
    Slowed down. The GPS clocks for instance run artificially slow to compensate for less time dilation at that altitude.

    Objective Time refers to the true, universal flow that keeps everything synchronized, independent of where you are or how fast you’re moving.
    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.

    The strength of this theory lies in logical reasoning.
    The strength in Einstein's theory lies in mathematics. Guess which wins?

    From the perspective of objective time
    Objective time, like the speed of light, isn't a perspective. 'Objective time' hasn't a location any more than does light speed.

    Here’s the crucial point: If a being’s awareness of time speeds up to infinity, it would freeze objective time entirely.
    I thought time (the one you're speeding up) was the objective time. How can it both speed up and stop?


    Anyway, besides the appropriate reply from @Banno, you've not provided one single empirical way to test your assertions, many of which are quite wrong.
  • punos
    561

    I totally agree, i've tried to describe this concept of time before, but with little success. Perhaps you can do better than i have. :up:

    I believe i know what you're talking about because it appears almost, if not precisely, isomorphic with my concept of primordial time or what i sometimes call "0th order time". Briefly, in my "theory" or hypothesis, there is, as you call it, an objective time, with 0 entropy, or in other words, "arrowless time". On top of this objective time emerges relative time (1st order time), and it's characterized by its entropy rising above 0, from which emerges the "arrow of time". The relative sense of time is due to relationships between objects, things, but more fundamentally, information. This information can travel in space at a set speed determined by objective time. The relationship between an observer, the object being observed, and the speed of light (maximum speed of information propagation, or causation) produces the apparent relative temporal effects on observers. The temporal effects are really effects of the differences between when one observer receives the information and another.

    It's interesting to think about how if you found yourself in an infinite empty space by yourself. If you were to now try to move at some constant speed, you would not see anything change (not getting closer to or farther from anything). It would feel like a timeless (objective time) space where nothing could happen no matter how much effort was made. Now, if there were two people in this infinite space, and one of them were to move at a constant speed, a sense of time (relative time) emerges. You will also notice that in this relative situation, there is only 1 dimension. No matter what direction you choose to move in, the relative effect is that you either move closer to or farther from the other person. If you add a third person and move in some arbitrary direction, you will notice the emergence of angular differences in relation to the others. But here, the 3 people exist in 2 dimensions. For any one observer of the three, the other two appear to be on a 2-dimensional plane. My point here is to illustrate the relationship of time and space.

    None of this negates anything in Einstein's theories. Einstein's theory is not a theory of objective time; it is a theory of relative time, thus the name "relativity". It's a theory about how we experience time, which is a very useful and indispensable thing.
  • Echogem222
    92
    You probably understand more science than I do, but at the very least, we both agree about objective time, which is great, that I'm not the only one who realized this.
  • punos
    561
    is great, that I'm not the only one who realized this.Echogem222

    The sentiment is mutual.

    I came to this conclusion through simple imagination and logic. In my mind's eye, i placed myself at the center of absolute emptiness and asked, "Now what? What is possible, and why would it be possible?" Little by little, piece by piece, i constructed the necessary parts in the right order to conceptually build the universe we experience today.

    This approach is similar to Einstein's thought experiments. It helps to know a lot, about a lot of things, but i don't think you really need to know that much. What's crucial is knowing yourself sufficiently and observing your thoughts in a rigorously logical manner, without skipping any necessary steps as you move up the "ladder" of understanding. Everything must have its contingency in place before it emerges.

    One of my main methods for understanding something is to actually forget everything i think i know and begin from scratch, building knowledge logically and rationally from zero upwards.

    "Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and the gods." - Inscription at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Why have you become that cryptic?

    Let me guess. The plant pot appears broken in the picture. But it was in a perfect condition previously, when it was moulded and you bought it. That's how time works. I may say the plant pot is broken and I can be correct often, and I also can say it is not broken and also being correct. Because these two features were part of the pot at different times, and both are correct.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    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
    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.
    Also, "the slower time appears to pass...". Not, it appears to; it really actually does. Search on Youtube for short lectures by Don Lincoln, Fermi Lab. Difficult thought made accessible for the rest of us with minimal dumbing down, and several on relativity. Edit: and if you're going to think about this stuff, then you have to adjust and think about spacetime.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    No clock requires subjectivity to operate. They do just fine when nobody is looking at them.noAxioms

    Although, I see your point, it makes me wonder why we fix clocks that are not in time. I am already aware of the old saying that 'one broken clock says the correct hour twice.' But isn't this sense of 'right time' something subjective? We could accept that time is something that works on its own, but talking about clocks, it seems to me that these objects also have a bit of subjective interference in their way of working.
  • Echogem222
    92
    Yes, this is exactly what everyone ought to be doing, but instead, it's just assuming certain things are true because the majority of people seem to agree, thus, by agreeing with the majority of people, you can save time and effort, and might be correct. I mean, I do this sometimes, but I'm not going to disagree with someone making a point when I don't actually know if they're wrong or not, I would instead ask them questions or just not say anything.
  • kazan
    150
    @punos,
    Understand your overall direction/intention of "One of ..main methods of understanding something...building knowledge logically and rationally from zero upwards'
    But begs the question to be asked: 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.
    With reflection,a bit logically,rationally and absolutistically illogical, irrational and too all encompassing, don't you think?
    Just an observation, not a put down, but statements of such an all encompassing scope/ nature are hard to logically and rationally defend. And may not help bring waivering audiences over to your thinking in regards the OP. If that is your intention?

    gentle smile
  • kazan
    150
    @Echogem222,
    Just a quick series of questions to improve an understanding of your OP.
    Can objective time ever be observed from 'within the universe' without invoking E/stien's relativity of time to the observer effect? If yes, how and under what conditions? If no, what about from 'outside the universe', imagining that to be possible and dependent upon a favorably restrictive definition of " what is the universe?"
    enjoying smile
  • kazan
    150
    @punos,
    Sometimes, maybe, the Delphic priests were rebellious and cynical towards the orthodoxy of the olympian pantheon and, using their well developed method of obscurity and opacity declared that by looking at mankind's mental creativeness, gods and reality are man made and influenced, not the reverse? A bit naughty for their social environment, but maybe after an amphora or two of temple offerings, inhibitions were lowered?
    Keeping an eye on those priests smile
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    The plant pot appears broken in the picturejavi2541997

    I believe 'cracked' is the word you're looking for, but then, a joke explained is a joke lost.

    Incidentally, for interested readers, a substantial article by Evan Thompson on the debate between Henri Bergson and Albert Einstein on the nature of time in April 1922. I've just listened to the corresponding chapter of Thompson's co-authored book on this topic. Says something philosophically important, in my view.

    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

    I concur. I also believe this is concordant with Kant's description of time as a 'primary intuition'.
  • punos
    561
    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

    The phrase "from scratch" refers to creating something from the very beginning, using basic or raw materials, rather than relying on pre-made components or shortcuts. It implies a process that starts with nothing and builds up to the final product. The raw materials are the fundamental principles that would need to exist first so as to provide contingency for anything more complex.

    For example, in an absolute emptiness with no time (objective or relative), it would be impossible for events to occur, even in an abstract sense, since no physicality would yet exist. This version of 'scratch' is nonviable, so what is the first ingredient necessary for the first and simplest thing to occur? That first ingredient must be objective time from which emerges possibility. Now the question is what can occur, and what is the nature of that event? It must logically emerge from objective time since that is all you have in the universe at the moment. Can something emerge from this kind of time? If yes, then how; if not, then what other fundamental principle ingredient is missing? What kind of quality must this principle have, and how does it work with objective time to produce an emergence? And so on.

    You don't actually literally forget everything; you just don't use it. It is there for when you need to solve the next step, but you must have a logical reason for the piece or 'ingredient' you use, and it must be supported by what you have already built. There also needs to be an initial phase of reductionism before this method in order to have available to you the fundamental ideas you will be using. Think about dismantling a clock and putting it back together in the right order so that the clock works when you're finished rebuilding it.

    There is a quote by Richard Feynman: "What I cannot create, I do not understand."

    With reflection,a bit logically,rationally and absolutistically illogical, irrational and too all encompassing, don't you think?kazan

    No, not necessarily, but i can understand why some people might. It's an old story really; of ridicule, violent opposition, and then acceptance. Look into the history of the number zero, and how people reacted to that concept throughout different civilizations when first introduced to it.

    And may not help bring waivering audiences over to your thinking in regards the OP. If that is your intention?kazan

    My intention is to simply share my thoughts and understandings. If it helps anyone, then great, if not then no big deal. Opposition is actually expected even if one is right, or wrong. :smile:
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Hey, Wayfarer, thank you for giving me a new clue, but I'm still lost on the joke. I am very bad at getting jokes, honestly, more if they are even related to philosophy.
    ––
    Good and substantial article, indeed. 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. For this, we also say that a clock is 'cracked' when it doesn't show the correct hours. But, paradoxically, the exact same cracked clock will show the correct hour twice a day.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    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

    Because the clock itself has no awareness of the duration between two points on its face. The measuring device comprises a machine that advances a pointer at a specified interval but the observer is the one who comprehends the time between those two points as 'an interval'.

    Also note that Thompson takes pains to explain the sense in which Bergson's analysis was incorrect with respect to the 'twin paradox', however, the basic point still remains, which is, in the last sentence of the article, that 'Bergson continues to remind us of something forgotten in our scientific worldview: experience is the ineliminable source of physics'.

    Italics added.
  • kazan
    150
    @punos,
    Well defended and agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of your intention.

    cheerful smile
  • punos
    561

    :wink: :up:
  • Echogem222
    92
    I think what this issue of non-understanding really boils down to is people not truly understanding their perception of nothing. Nothing by definition prevents us from understanding it as being anything, but objective time, when looked at from the right perspective, isn't actually nothing, but a useable concept. However, it is nothing regarding it being useful like subjective time is due to our current limitations in understanding it as directly as we do for subjective time.

    I've gone into the direction of understanding all kinds of things which many assume is just nothing, but actually aren't when you look at them from the right perspective. They're kind of like hidden gems in philosophy, which is why they've been left unnoticed for so long.
  • Carlo Roosen
    243
    Somebody defeating Einstein. Somebody more arrogant than me! That should be stopped.

    Einstein started with one simple assumption: suppose there is a maximum theoretical speed in the universe. Because the speed of light is the maximum speed known to man, let's take that as the maximum speed, c. From that assumption alone, a whole bunch of formulas arose.

    Now, you may have some experience with formulas like y = 2x + 3. And by drawing lots of x-y graphs in high school, you may have an intuitive understanding of how this works. You immediately see: it is a linear equation. The line is a bit steep and crosses the y-axis at a height of y = 3. If x was the number of potatoes and y the price you'd pay for them, you'd interpret the 2 as the price per potato and 3 as the fixed costs, say, for order handling. What I am saying is: you have some kind of reference to personal experience to understand how this formula operates, what it "means."

    Einstein's formulas are a bit more difficult. Lots of integrals. The stories to understand these formulas require black holes and spaceships.

    Here is one story for you: I am in a spaceship and I make myself a nice space cake. I share half of this cake with a fellow astronaut in another spaceship. After that, each of us goes our own way, mucking around and doing the regular flying around black holes. After some time, we meet again. At that moment, I notice that my space cake has become old and dry, but my friend's space cake is still fresh. The difference in age is only 10-10 s, but it is real. You know how fast space cake can get old.

    Now, first of all, your story may or may not lead to a better understanding—it remains just a story. Just like the potatoes. The real thing is the formulas. If you can build a coherent story with an absolute time frame, go for it. The problem is, your story is not in line with the formulas.
  • punos
    561

    I'm sure you know this already but..

    The problem is with words and language. Some ideas are pretty concrete and can be readily understood, yet not always. Other ideas are very abstract, and not everyone possesses the appropriate mental modalities for certain types of thinking. Everyone has some sort of ratio of these, and there is nothing wrong with that. Nothingness or 'objective time' are the ultimate abstract ideas, i think, and therein lies the problem. Also, the same words mean different things to different people, and it's so rare to find someone that has the same internal dictionary and modality ratios as yourself. But i still believe that the Tao that cannot be told can still be told. It's just very tricky to structure your language code to match what's in the other person's language code.

    All human communication is highly partial and is never complete in its transmission. Mathematics, logic, and even algorithmic languages such as programming languages are much better. Visualizations and even certain physical and mental experiences can provide affordances for new understanding. Rarely can a person understand something they do not recognize in their own experience. It's like explaining color to a blind person, or a blind person explaining nothingness (blindness) to a sighted person.

    "If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed" - William Blake
  • Echogem222
    92
    True, but there is a way to bridge the gap somewhat, and that is by understanding the subjective nature of words themselves. I fairly recently fully resolved the liar's paradox by explaining how words are actually mirrors, as they reflect the subjective nature of our own perspectives.
    Here is a link to that if you're interested: https://medium.com/@echogem222b/the-liars-paradox-words-as-mirrors-of-understanding-8e38fbc71789

    Also, I've figured out a way that we can all have a more unified perspective, our
    internal dictionary and modality ratiospunos
    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-cbb84de42422

    But if you're not interested in reading either of those posts, it's fine, just thought you might be.
  • punos
    561

    I'll certainly take a look at the links you provided. Thank you.
    It's 3:40 am here right now, i've made my bed and will now lay in it.
    Good night for now.
  • Echogem222
    92
    No worries, goodnight.
  • fdrake
    6.6k


    I'm closing the thread since it's pseudoscience. This isn't to say you can't criticise Einstein or relativity, as @Wayfarer's reference to the Bergson/Einstein debate shows, just don't do it like this, alright?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.