Time is the Universal Constant
Comments: 13

      What do I know? Nothing…I believe that time is the “universal constant”, not...

You can bend light, but not time. Prove it otherwise.
youve got it backwards. the theory of special relativity goes like this. time is not constant. time is accelerated motion against two moving objects. thats all time is. time does not exist if only one object is in the universe. as there would be nothing in relation to it, other than space. time is bent creating the relation so two objects view light the same. two different views show time different because of light staying at a constant rate. light is always 186000 m/s. k think of it like this time and space are on a graph time is on the y axis and space on the x. when something is sitting at perfect standstill its only traveling through time not through space. when that object moves against another object or in relation to space or x on the graph, energy from time is borrowed. slowing the amount in which you are traveling though time to transfer the energy into traveling through space. while keeping a constant rate for lightspeed. simple as that. read some brian greene he explains it so simply. another easy way to think about it is the bigger in space you are, the less you have to travel through it creating an illusion of less time. an ant takes longer to get somewhere than we do. yet the light is relative to both myself and an ant. still traveling at 186000 m/s.

Thank you for your comment, really… but this "idea” is not backwards at all, it really is forwards. Or, are you just really trying to communicate to me, that you personally disagree with what I believe to be true and are simply sharing with me, that the “theories” that you believe to be true and have learned are different from what I have shared whit you and everyone who reads this?
That is quite alright, what I am saying is that I do disagree and that regardless if there is accelerated motion against two moving objects, time is not an illusion and time has proven itself to every living being on the planet regardless if they are Physicists , time passes by every second, every minute every hour, every day…which is only the system devised we use to measure it.
What I am saying, is that time is in fact the constant and has been moving forward, ever since the big bang “theory” was set into motion. Regardless if there was only one object in the universe, time would still be, moving forward for that one object. There is no proof of time ever having been bent; there are only more “theories”. Where are the worm-holes? All that I am saying is for you to open your eyes and to observe life for what is really happening. Time is the constant, and light will travel “this far” in “this” amount of time.
If it were not true, If time did not constantly move forward gravitational lensing would not exist, light is bent, not time.
Please, consider this last comment as I have also considered your thoughts, then I will shut up as you and many, more than likely wish…First, you mentioned a graph in which time is represented by the “Y” axis and space is represented by the “X” axis. In my opinion this graph is not possible nor would it represent the truth, as space in our reality is 3 dimensional with its own X,Y,Z axis and time in our reality would be a ray which began the moment after the Big Bang. How do you then place an XYZ into another XYZ graph?
Light is “bent”, it is refracted, in raindrops spreading out the individual wavelengths of light to produce a rainbow, correct? So, is time also “bent” and or refracted in the drops of rain as well? No, only the light is. Also this…Light is bent from the intense heat of the scorching sun, rising up from a desert plain, producing a mirage in the view of an observer. Is time also “bent” in the mirage? No, only the light is. Lastly…a bright large object in space hides behind a massive object with a gravitational field as equally as massive, bending the light and producing the gravitational lensing effect to an observing astronomer. Was time bent by the gravity? No
It still took that star light -8 years to reach your position. Regardless of perceived “time dilation” or perceptions of “Simultaneity”. I believe this to be an error similar to flawed depth perception. Regardless if your time has seemingly slowed down, 8 years for you with mass have in fact passed by, not for the light, as light traveled that distance, light only appears as it was 8 years ago at your position and progresses from the moment you can see it, and on.
O.K...gravity is as fast as the speed of light...got it…if the sun vaporized right now…it would take the lack of light and its provided gravity wave a certain time to reach us and be evident on Earth, so not instantaneous…Now, noting that “hypothetically speaking” in the train example…the train is traveling at the speed of light, please consider, that BOTH lightning strikes represent a space in time that is STATIONARY, yet only moving in the opposite direction “in relation” ,“relative” to, the forward motion of the train.
It could then appear to the traveling observer inside that the rear strike, did not even strike the moving train at all. If distance becomes dilated to the front, why hasn’t anyone accepted that the occurrences would appear dilated and pushed back at the front and at the rear as well, since the distance and time that the light reaches the observers eye, remains the same? The only difference is the observer’s velocity and forward motion?
They would have been moving so fast, it may have never appeared to even strike the train at all. It all does depend on the “frame of reference”, yes – I believe that the stationary reference without forward motion to that reference is truly the correct reference, because it is not subject to the Lorentz factor and time dilatation. So, it is only relative to the fact if you are subject to the Lorentz factor and time dilatation and are in fact in motion. But, I guess I'm too ignorant to accept that I am wrong, when all that I did was to propose an idea and ask the questions. Thanks for hearing me out. I honestly hope you got a great laugh!
Again, you obviously do not understand the theory. Everything is relative and it is true. Just like when you compare the time down here on earth and the time up in space on satellites, they are different. Relative to the satellites, the time goes faster compare to the time down here on earth. Engineers didn't believe that at first even though the theory predicts the clock in space would tick faster compare to identical clocks down on earth. That is why we now use atomic clocks in space/GPS-FACT...Time is not relative,distance is relative to your position.Time will always pass for all observers.Time will always pass.How fast will light travel in what amount of time? Time always passes.The Earth should broadcast the current time to the orbiting satellites and the daily reset would never be a problem.Who is the keeper of time? What reference are you using?Stop re-setting it and use one universal time...it is only the system we use as an observed measurement to record it and mark it by.Light will only travel this far...in this amount of time...DISTANCE is relative.
DISTANCE is relative.SPEED is relative...but time continues for all observers and that is the only source of non-agreement of Frame and reference. Speed and distance. Because time continues on. You cannot get in front of right now.
You cannot get in front of right now...No matter where you are and no matter how fast you are traveling.
it makes me think that it has something to do with our brain and how we perceive the universe
Time is the Universal constant, because light cannot shine beyond time.
Add Comment
Loading Comment Box..