Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Does time have a “normal” speed?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MODAT7" data-source="post: 257502" data-attributes="member: 13649"><p>I've considered this before for some story ideas. Since an atomic clock uses high frequency vibrations (motion) of an atom, it makes a useful comparison. Normal time for humans is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium-133 atomic clock per second. The strong gravity of a black hole produces a type of gravitational redshift (slowing) compared to a lesser gravity area (deep space). If you were orbiting a black hole close to the event horizon, gravity would be quite high and time would appear slower compared to deep space far away. However, from your perspective, one second would still be 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium-133 atomic clock, but those ticks would still be slower compared to deep space. From the near black hole perspective, the 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium-133 atomic clock in deep space would appear to be running much faster. From deep space looking at the atomic clock near the black hole, that atomic clock would appear to be running much slower. For the person in deep space, one second would still be 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium-133 atomic clock.</p><p></p><p>Technically, both atomic clocks are correct at 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. At the 2 relative points far away from each other, counting the difference in actual ticks vs theoretically correct ticks will give you a time flow rate change percentage.</p><p></p><p>Now the big question arises: Does the time flow rate really change with gravity? Is a Planck Tick really the same near a black hole vs. deep space? If so, that would indicate that time flow is the same around a black hole and something else is causing the apparent time rate variation. If time really does slow down with higher gravity, that would seem to indicate that temporal density has some direct correlation to gravitational density.</p><p></p><p>As a side note, the distance light travels in 1 second can be used as a measure of time. This seems backwards to most people. Gravitational lensing is seen around black holes and to a lesser degree around other objects. With the question above, is gravitational lensing really caused by gravity or is it a product of a time density change? or both? With time running apparently slower, the distance light travels in one second would appear to be less. Scientists have complained because when they try to accurately measure light speed, they keep getting variations when they "shouldn't". What if these variations are really a measurement of temporal variations?</p><p></p><p>There are still some unaccounted for minor variations in radioactive decay that I don't have a good explanation for. Moronal physics refuses to acknowledge them, but measurements show that they do exist.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MODAT7, post: 257502, member: 13649"] I've considered this before for some story ideas. Since an atomic clock uses high frequency vibrations (motion) of an atom, it makes a useful comparison. Normal time for humans is 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium-133 atomic clock per second. The strong gravity of a black hole produces a type of gravitational redshift (slowing) compared to a lesser gravity area (deep space). If you were orbiting a black hole close to the event horizon, gravity would be quite high and time would appear slower compared to deep space far away. However, from your perspective, one second would still be 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium-133 atomic clock, but those ticks would still be slower compared to deep space. From the near black hole perspective, the 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium-133 atomic clock in deep space would appear to be running much faster. From deep space looking at the atomic clock near the black hole, that atomic clock would appear to be running much slower. For the person in deep space, one second would still be 9,192,631,770 ticks of a cesium-133 atomic clock. Technically, both atomic clocks are correct at 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. At the 2 relative points far away from each other, counting the difference in actual ticks vs theoretically correct ticks will give you a time flow rate change percentage. Now the big question arises: Does the time flow rate really change with gravity? Is a Planck Tick really the same near a black hole vs. deep space? If so, that would indicate that time flow is the same around a black hole and something else is causing the apparent time rate variation. If time really does slow down with higher gravity, that would seem to indicate that temporal density has some direct correlation to gravitational density. As a side note, the distance light travels in 1 second can be used as a measure of time. This seems backwards to most people. Gravitational lensing is seen around black holes and to a lesser degree around other objects. With the question above, is gravitational lensing really caused by gravity or is it a product of a time density change? or both? With time running apparently slower, the distance light travels in one second would appear to be less. Scientists have complained because when they try to accurately measure light speed, they keep getting variations when they "shouldn't". What if these variations are really a measurement of temporal variations? There are still some unaccounted for minor variations in radioactive decay that I don't have a good explanation for. Moronal physics refuses to acknowledge them, but measurements show that they do exist. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Does time have a “normal” speed?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top