Absolute Time vs. Face Time
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Curt Youngs

Velocity multiplied by time is distance

Velocity divided by distance is time.

C (the speed of light) divided by distance is time, the light time, or the latency of the wave front from emission to detection.

No matter, if there is relative motion or not, (“not” means emitter and detector are at rest.) there is light-latency when there is distance.

Thus, regardless of how clocks are synchronized, the “face time” (i.e. what everyone interprets as the “time” of a regulated and ticking clock) of a clock observed from a distance has to be updated with the latency time in order for the observer to know what the distant clock’s face time is at the instant he reads it. (The distant clock keeps ticking after the wave front leaves it. The “time” shown by the wave front does not change during the travel to the observer. Thus the time seen by the observer is not what the observer would see at the location of the distant clock.)

We will let “t” be the face time of any clock, as seen from any distance.

We will let “d” be the distance of that clock from us.

We will let c/d be the latency of light over the distance the clock is from us. (c/d) is a time, a duration.

Let “T” be the “absolute” time of any clock, (which is “t” adjusted for the latency of distance, from the clock to the observer.) (Absolute time is the time on any clock if one could instantly travel from the observation location, to the clock’s location to read it.)

Now, any absolute time “T” of any clock is the “face time” of the clock as seen from distance “d,” adjusted by (t+c/d).

T=t+c/d

In all scenarios of clock times that are seen or imagined, T must be substituted for t. This means that whether the clock distances are changing or stationary, the “time” on any clock as seen from a particular vantage point must be adjusted by (t+c/d)

(t+c/d ) is the time transform factor that must be added to the time transmitted to each distant clock to synchronize it.

I think the idea of absolute time is the same thing as Proper Time, no?

Proper time is only determined by an agreed upon yardstick.

This is why Einstein introduced the speed of light into the theory.


Thinking about clocks confuses the point though.


It isn't that the clocks run slow.


A clock or person or particle in motion will not perceive it's motion through time to be slowed down.


A body which is experiencing severe time dilation will swear to you that 1 second equals 1 second, even if it was actually 1.5 seconds.


Then you remind it that the speed of light is always measured to be invariant, and ask them to measure the velocity of a light beam, while comparing it to their velocity.


They measure c for one second and get roughly 300,000 km/s, inexplicably if they are traveling fast enough to be at T = .5, and you point out to them that when they measured the distance that light beam covered in a second, it actually took a second and a half.

So what they measured as a second covering 300,000 km away from them, was actually 1.5 seconds covering 450,000 km away from them.

THAT is why Einstein invoked the speed of light will always be MEASURED to be constant, as the universal yardstick to confirm time dilation when everything aboard your vessel says otherwise.

Max: I had to discard my humanistic view of the universe for Relativity to truly make sense, as I realized that I am not the center of things. I am just a part of the universe experiencing itself.


AAF: Very well then; discard the misleading idea that two systems in relative are not equivalent on the basis of Einstein's Relativity! Since by virtue of the Postulate of Relativity, time measurements made by observers in both systems are the same and equal to the last decimal. There is absolutely no point in denying this conclusion; and hence Dingle's Clock Paradox is true and cannot be resolved within the context of Einstein's theory of Relativity.

Very well then; discard the misleading idea that two systems in relative are not equivalent on the basis of Einstein's Relativity! Since by virtue of the Postulate of Relativity, time measurements made by observers in both systems are the same and equal to the last decimal. There is absolutely no point in denying this conclusion; and hence Dingle's Clock Paradox is true and cannot be resolved within the context of Einstein's theory of Relativity.


You have misunderstood what the Postulate of Relativity means.

It means both observers will agree on the results of nuclear decay, of gravity, thermodynamics, both observers will agree that time dilation is an aspect of motion.

That does NOT, I repeat NOT mean that both observers will measure the same results for different actions, measuring an aspect of a physical law is NOT the same as the physical law working in the same way.

That is ridiculous to even consider, isn't it? Am I the only one who sees the absurdity in that idea?

What you're claiming is akin to saying that two observers in relative motion will measure their motion to be exactly the same and equal to the last decimal, even if one is accelerating much faster than the other.

If it's patently false to claim that for motion through space, and you don't see why it is wrong to claim that for time, then you need a better understanding of time.

Max, the fundamental problem you have is you talk about time. Cincirob said that .5 seconds pass in the moving frame when 1 second passes in the rest frame. This makes absolutely no sense as it asserts that 1/2=1. That is not very useful, and makes no sense. You replied to my qestion that 2 seconds in the rest frame were equivalent to one second in the rest frame because what Cincirob said was true. So you said 2=1, which was just as silly as saying that 1/2=1. Do you get this?? Probably not, from what I have read so far. Please dont talk about time anymore as it makes you seem to be arguing a completely silly point and making ridiculous conclusions.

Time is a direction.

When the moving frame moves .5 seconds through time, the rest frame moves 1 second through time.

I did not say that 2 seconds in the rest frame was 1 second in the rest frame, you misread something clearly.


I'm not arguing a silly point, you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, and what the real nature of time is.


Time doesn't flow, or pass.

We move through time.


This is why I say it is understandable that people make this mistake, what time IS and what time SEEMS to be are very different things.

Max™ said: "Proper time is only determined by an agreed upon yardstick."
then he said: "Thinking about clocks confuses the point though."

Curt says: Max™, so, we must stick to yard sticks and forget clocks? Everybody thinks Einstein's theory (It is a theory, right? Or is it like growing old, or your check book?) is about clocks, yardsticks, and the speed of light.

What I had in mind here is an arbitrary, but absolute measure of time. I am pretty sure that I agree with you, that everyone with a Rolex will think his time is right on, regardless of his speed in relation to anywhere else.

Max™ said: "They measure c for one second"

Curt says: Max™, how do they do that? Takes a mighty long tape measure!

Hey, its Sunday, I've got to barbecue, and i forgot the most poignant part of this post. Sorry.

The yardsticks and clocks are just methods used to attempt to explain the nature of Time.

Thinking about it as clocks makes people think that the problem is some mechanical error, or a mistake in reading the clock.

The simple truth of it is that clocks are just an easy to relate example.

You could consider an hourglass, the decay of a particle, the tic toc of a bamboo water clock.


When I speak of time, I am actually ALWAYS referring implicitly to the Planck time or some multiple of it, which is related to the speed of light.

When I say a second, I mean how long it takes a beam of light to cover 299,792,458 meters.

When you're moving, and you measure a beam of light crossing that distance, you add your motion to the measurement as you'd expect.

Yet if you're going 150,000 km per second, and measure a beam of light, you will see it cross 300,000 km in a second.

If you're moving fast and throw a rock, it adds the speed you throw it to your speed, easy enough, why doesn't that happen with light?

You actually measure the beam crossing 450,000 km because what you're convinced is a second from your point of view at your velocity is wrong, and you actually measured the distance the beam travels in 1.5 seconds from its frame.

Your 1 second in motion equals 1.5 seconds according to the speed of light.

You're experiencing dilated time.

As you move faster through space, you move slower through time.

The yardsticks and clocks are just methods used to attempt to explain the nature of Time.

Thinking about it as clocks makes people think that the problem is some mechanical error, or a mistake in reading the clock.

The simple truth of it is that clocks are just an easy to relate example.

You could consider an hourglass, the decay of a particle, the tic toc of a bamboo water clock.


When I speak of time, I am actually ALWAYS referring implicitly to the Planck time or some multiple of it, which is related to the speed of light.

When I say a second, I mean how long it takes a beam of light to cover 299,792,458 meters.

When you're moving, and you measure a beam of light crossing that distance, you add your motion to the measurement as you'd expect.

Yet if you're going 150,000 km per second, and measure a beam of light, you will see it cross 300,000 km in a second.

If you're moving fast and throw a rock, it adds the speed you throw it to your speed, easy enough, why doesn't that happen with light?

You actually measure the beam crossing 450,000 km because what you're convinced is a second from your point of view at your velocity is wrong, and you actually measured the distance the beam travels in 1.5 seconds from its frame.

Your 1 second in motion equals 1.5 seconds according to the speed of light.

You're experiencing dilated time.

As you move faster through space, you move slower through time.

Gah, stupid lag made me double post.

It was an important point, so I guess it fits to make it twice.

Max, I advised you to stop talking about time, and you responded by asserting a confused metaphysical interpretation of something, which you conceive in your mind, as having something to do with "time". Your "time" is only in your mind, and is simply a metaphysical dream of what physicists, who think they are being "scientific", have concocted. You imagine what you think "time" could be or ought to be based on metaphysical speculations about "time" that are totally imaginary. This is not physics, has nothing to do with physics, and is completely a delusion of physicists and mathematicans who think they know more about "time" than philosophers who know better. All you say is just philosophical speculation on the metaphysical nature of "time". As science, it is mostly meaningless.

You are still continuing to assert that time dilation means that a unit of "time" in an inertial rest frame case is different from a unit of "time" in a relatively moving inertial frame, even though according to the principle of relativity it is impossible to determine any difference exists at all. So you are asserting there is a difference in "time" when "in principle" there can be no difference. Please explain this contradiction in your thinking.

No, you are confused as to the nature of time.

I am asserting the simplest explanation of time, I find it natural to think in 4 Dimensional Terms.

I am a philosopher, and a physicist, in ye olden days, they were usually the same thing.


What do you think time IS?

A now that disappears after you see it?

That is patently absurd.


*You are still continuing to assert that time dilation means that a unit of "time" in an inertial rest frame case is different from a unit of "time" in a relatively moving inertial frame, even though according to the principle of relativity it is impossible to determine any difference exists at all. So you are asserting there is a difference in "time" when "in principle" there can be no difference. Please explain this contradiction in your thinking.*

No, I am asserting that a unit of time in an ACCELERATING frame is different, in any frame which you could apply the principle of relativity against another frame regarding time, they must be stationary according to each other, or co-moving at a steady velocity.

There is no contradiction in my thinking, there is a misunderstanding about the nature of time and the principle of relativity in yours.

The principle of relativity does not say you will observe the exact same amount of time as another observer does at any velocity.

It says you will perceive the same rate of motion through time, and the measured speed of light being constant is an example to explain this.


You need to stop thinking about time as something that happens, time is a direction.

Up/Down
Left/Right
Forwards/Backwards
Past/Future

Provide me with a simpler explanation of time than "it is a direction we travel through".

No, you are confused as to the nature of time.

I am asserting the simplest explanation of time, I find it natural to think in 4 Dimensional Terms.

I am a philosopher, and a physicist, in ye olden days, they were usually the same thing.


What do you think time IS?

A now that disappears after you see it?

That is patently absurd.


*You are still continuing to assert that time dilation means that a unit of "time" in an inertial rest frame case is different from a unit of "time" in a relatively moving inertial frame, even though according to the principle of relativity it is impossible to determine any difference exists at all. So you are asserting there is a difference in "time" when "in principle" there can be no difference. Please explain this contradiction in your thinking.*

No, I am asserting that a unit of time in an ACCELERATING frame is different, in any frame which you could apply the principle of relativity against another frame regarding time, they must be stationary according to each other, or co-moving at a steady velocity.

There is no contradiction in my thinking, there is a misunderstanding about the nature of time and the principle of relativity in yours.

The principle of relativity does not say you will observe the exact same amount of time as another observer does at any velocity.

It says you will perceive the same rate of motion through time, and the measured speed of light being constant is an example to explain this.


You need to stop thinking about time as something that happens, time is a direction.

Up/Down
Left/Right
Forwards/Backwards
Past/Future

Provide me with a simpler explanation of time than "it is a direction we travel through".

Max, Your answer only demonstrates that you do need to heed my advice. You didnt, and you made no sense at all in what you said.

What didn't make sense to you about the way I describe time?

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to figure out why.

Max, I will say it simply and straight. The time you imagine, the time in your mind, is metaphysical time. It has no place in physics because it is purely a philosophical concept. Here we are discussing physical time, that is time as it is defined in physics. Unfortunately this physical time is not the time of Einstein's theory of relativity, although many scientists think that it is. Hence to talk of time dilation is nonsense since no such concept has any real place in a theory of physics. Einstein's theory is not physics but metaphysical philosophy. Does this make it clear to you?

Harry: Max, I will say it simply and straight. The time you imagine, the time in your mind, is metaphysical time. It has no place in physics because it is purely a philosophical concept. Here we are discussing physical time, that is time as it is defined in physics. Unfortunately this physical time is not the time of Einstein's theory of relativity, although many scientists think that it is. Hence to talk of time dilation is nonsense since no such concept has any real place in a theory of physics. Einstein's theory is not physics but metaphysical philosophy. Does this make it clear to you?


Harry, I will say it simply and straight. The NOW you imagine, the NOW in your mind, is an observational artifact of time. It has no place in physics because NOW is purely an artifact of observation. Here I am discussing physical time, that is time as it is defined in physics. Unfortunately this physical time is not the same as your sense of NOW, although many laymen think it is. Hence to claim that time dilation is nonsense is absurd, since your NOW is an observational artifact of no importance. Einstein's theory is about the actual nature of time, your NOW is just observational philosophy. Does this make it clear to you?


Now is not the only time that exists.

Just because your eyes say it is so does not make it fact.

Just for the record, current quantum theories make no assumption or consideration about the arrow of time.

Does that not seem ridiculous to anyone else?


Your perception of time is wrong, flat out, undeniably wrong.


The sequence of "nows" which you perceive results from your motion THROUGH THE DIRECTION KNOWN AS TIME.


Time dilation is an observed reality, your impression about time is not, it is a notion that what you see is fact.


I realized a long time ago that my senses are only a window to reality.

Looking out the window at a blade of grass is not the same thing as understanding that there is an entire field out there.