# Physics Evasiveness

#### idontknow

Time is continued progress of existence and if time moves then what is the speed(velocity) of time ?:dance:

#### Maschke

One second per second.

#### v8archie

Math Team
It depends on the relative speed of the observer to the observed.

#### idontknow

An occurrence is different over time (clock) in relation to her changing component.
In the aspect of time (General Time) occurrence means existence.
Time (General Time) affects time (clock) each time (clock) equally.
Our concept, perception of time (we see) is wrong.
Any idea ?:showoff:

Last edited by a moderator:

#### JeffM1

Any idea ?:showoff:
Yes. Explain what you believe to be the generally accepted "idea of time." Cite one or more physical observations that are inconsistent with that "idea."

1 person

#### Benit13

Math Team
During my degree, a lecturer answered the question from a student asking "What is time?"

The answer was "Something measured by clocks".

So that's more or less it unless you want to dive into general/special relativity.

#### Benit13

Math Team
An occurrence is different over time (clock) in relation to her changing component.
Yes...

In the aspect of time (General Time) occurrence means existence.
But then what about static things? Do they not exist? Can we be absolutely certain that the things we observe that do change exist? :spin:

Time (General Time) affects time (clock) each time (clock) equally.
No... you'll always see your own clock tick at the same rate, but if you observe somebody accelerate to some velocity v higher than yours, then you'll observe their clock ticking slower than yours. The important thing is acceleration, which is what really impacts the clock to make it tick differently.

Our concept, perception of time (we see) is wrong.
Any idea ?:showoff:
If you mean "our everyday common experience of time is that it is an absolute constant equal for everybody", then yes, that concept is not what is observed in relativity experiments. Time is not absolute and not constant.

However, the speeds of objects around us (you know, like people walking, cars driving, planes flying, etc.) are typically very small compared to the speed of light in a vacuum, so our concept of time is a very, very good approximation to the real result. Therefore, although it's wrong, it's only wrong by a tiny, tiny bit (most of the time *cough* GPS *cough*) :happy:

#### romsek

Math Team
The important thing is acceleration, which is what really impacts the clock to make it tick differently.
I don't believe this is true.

If you have a clock and an observer moving at constant non-zero relative velocity with respect to one another the observer will see that clock running slower than if they had zero relative velocity.

Acceleration doesn't enter into it at all.

1 person

#### Benit13

Math Team
I don't believe this is true.

If you have a clock and an observer moving at constant non-zero relative velocity with respect to one another the observer will see that clock running slower than if they had zero relative velocity.

Acceleration doesn't enter into it at all.
Actually, you're right. I didn't realize there were resolutions to the twin-paradox that didn't require acceleration. My bad.

#### skeeter

Math Team
I'm a traveler of both time and space
To be where I have been

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way

Does anybody really know what time it is?
Does anybody really care?

Now the time has come
There's no place to run
I might get burned up by the sun