The difference in the time measuring tools on the GPS satellites and Earth comes from the difference in the gravity.
The experiment with the two aircrafts, traveling in opposite directions around the earth should measure not only the time, but the gravity as well. Because it is very logical to assume that the gravity on them will be different.
It is easy to predict that the gravity on these two airplanes will change proportionally with the difference between the time measuring tools.

Before such experiment is done, we cannot claim that simultaneous events can be seen different due to relative speed.
(The relative speed can change the perception of a length and it can be even recored but that is the same like when blue color changes under yellow light (it can also be recorded).
The fact is that the object does not change its color. It is the perception that changes.)

And by the way, if you take in account my idea about the absolute and perceptive universal values, you'll see that Speed is based on the perceptive value of Time, and cannot have absolute value, like Einstein's claim about the speed of light.

I cannot think of greater significance than the fact that we cannot measure Time (since we use Time to measure Time). Are you saying that this is not significant at all !?
 

Definition of Sound: Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

I agreed with your definition because it doesn't change the subject of my argument - sound is vibrations or "pressure wave" (if you like it better) with certain frequencies.
Which supports my idea that SOUND has perceptive value.

---

I understand the embarrassment of woodworker showing your logical fallacy, but it would be even more embarrassing one day to find out that the woodworker was right and you were calling him fool.
Intelligent people know that "ad hominem" argument can easily  turn against you.

And just to remind you that you still haven't comment the points in my article.
Why do you think that Time is not the relation between two or more events?
Why do you think that we cannot measure Time in my thought experiments, even in the one in which we have an event?
 

Not just the gravity difference:

The gravity on two aircraft travelling at the same height and latitude will logically be almost exactly the same.

In practice, there will be differences due mainly to any differences in average altitude. If they fly at different latitudes, there will be further differences, due to the Earth not being perfectly spherical.

When they fly in opposite directions, the effective speed will be different due to the rotation of the Earth.

The experiment has been done, several times.

And of course they took both velocity (Time Dilation due to Special Relativity) and gravitational (General Relativity) are always taken into account:

Do you want to give us any more examples of your mis-reading and mis-understanding of this subject?

The change in frequency is recorded, and is not anything to do with different apparent color perceived under different lights. If the color is a pure color, of a single wavelength, it will NOT change apparent color under different lighting colors. That only occurs for objects reflecting a range of wavelengths, because it changes the relative amount of light perceived at different wavelengths.

We do not "use Time to measure Time".

We use all sorts of oscillating physical mechanisms which we have no reason to believe, from both theory and observation, should vary in frequency, from pendulums to atoms.

The fact that the results from all these sources all agree as closely as we could expect from the precision of their construction, confirms that they are useful for measuring time duration.

Whatever they are actually measuring, the results we get in all kinds of experiments all point to it being measuring a version of time that produces consistent results in a vast number of observations and experiment. 

Who has ever denied sound waves can be perceived? Are you seriously claiming you have something new or original there???

"Transmitted through" - in the case of liquids and gases, that transmission is via longitudinal pressure waves.

If you are still not accepting the FACT that "pressure waves" is the most accurate and widely-used description of the mechanism of transmission of sound through liquids and gases, you are being silly and stubborn.

You have still not acknowledged the many factual and logical errors I have pointed to in your posts. The nearest you have come is to rephrase the statement into something closer to the facts and then pretend it is just an alternative way of saying the same thing, and you just did it to make it easier for dumb old me to understand.

You have not shown any errors in my posts, you have simply refused to accept any errors on your part.

I have commented on the substance of your errors in the OP, which I assume you mean when you say "article", although it hardly justifies that description in either content or length. When you say "article" I expect to see a link to a longer description, but I can see none.

Time is the background against which all changes in observed reality, whether change of state of an object in the same place, or by movement, are measured and perceived.

Your distinction between ABSOLUTE and PERCEIVED is not useful, since there is no actual absolute time, and perception of time is an aspect of psychology and neuroscience and cognitive studies, it is clearly separate from any issues with time in physical measurements and observation.

Perception of time would be affected by relativistic effects if sufficiently large, but no-one has experienced velocities or gravitational fields large enough to be noticeable to our direct perception.

Your posts are just a collection of errors.

Your points and arguments are not worth 'getting'. 

Your stubborn ignorance, coupled with your condescending attitude to my remarks, are really tedious.

It seems we are not going to really make contact here.

I see you as deeply and arrogantly deluded and confident in your delusion and misunderstanding.

You obviously see me as deeply mistaken - I see no way to break through your stubborn ignorance.

Goodbye.

OK, I'll give you another chance.

Please show a little less arrogance and be prepared to admit where you may have actually got some things wrong.

You still misunderstand Einstein's theory. Of course he took the normal problems of measuring time intervals between events in two differently moving frames of reference into account - these are mainly due to the effects of the finite speed of light, which is how we observe the apparent passage of time as indicated on clocks in each frame.

There is no actual physical measuring tool involved to measure velocities, only optical measurements, imagined to be based on things like surveyors instruments.

In the Special Theory he was working through the implications of the Michelson-Morley experiments which showed that light appears to travel at a constant speed regardless of the motion of the frame of reference - in their case, the orbital motion of the Earth at different times of the year.

The formula for the apparent spatial contraction and time dilation of one frame of reference moving at a constant speed relative to the observer was formulated to so as to get  the result that when we observed someone measuring the speed of light in the other frame it would always come out to the same value as we would get measuring the same beam of light, so matching the results of the MM experiment.

The results of this calculation are that even after correcting for the normal direct effects of the speed of light on the time we see something happening in other frame, the time interval we measure between two events, one in our frame, one in the one moving relative to us, is going to depend on the relative velocity of the two frames, so there is no absolute time which is independent of the motion of the observer.

Light is the basic measuring 'tool' for speed and distance in all this. The precise measure of the local passage of time is usually done by counting the cycles of a signal at the natural resonance frequency of caesium atoms in an atomic clock. The time interval between two events is measured by counting how many oscillations occur between when we observe one event and the other. If they are in frames of reference in relative motion with respect to each other, we measure the relative motion with optical instruments and our clock, and apply the Einsteinian corrections.

The General Theory extended the Special Theory to allow for the effects of gravitational fields, and varying relative velocity (in magnitude and direction). Part of this included the equivalence principle, which states that it is not possible for observers to distinguish between being in a box accelerating at a constant rate, and in a box suspended in a uniform gravitational field strong enough to cause the same acceleration on freely falling objects.

Now that is an outline of the current thoroughly tested aspects of Einstein's Theories.

You cannot just dismiss any of that without a far more carefully thought-through hypothesis, with the appropriate mathematics, than I have seen from you so far. You have not argued remotely adequately to show flaws in the current theory, as I just outlined it. You have mainly demonstrated the flaws in your understanding of proven science.

Care to have another go, and specifically point out what you see as the flaw(s) in the description I just gave? Remember, time is measured by precisely measuring the natural oscillation frequency of atoms in an atomic clock, speed and distance using optical instruments.

If you are doing your reasoning and calculations carefully, you are doing science, and any flaws you feel you have uncovered are not flaws in science, they are (if demonstrated) flaws in the current interpretation of Time by most scientists. There are scientists exploring far more elaborate and strange interpretations of Time and Space than you are here, such as in String Theory, so don't rubbish Science, its the only tool we have for coming to grips with reality with our individual prejudices and biases and sensory limitations filtered out.

Scientists welcome fresh theories, but they have to be carefully defined so that other scientists can understand what you are trying to say. 

Now if you want to try a different way to study time, and can demonstrate that it provides some useful new insights, then fine, go ahead.

Actually I was a bit sloppy in that post. We don't use light to measure time, we use light to measure the distances and between different objects and their directions. Their speed can then be measured by observing them at two times close together.

We measure time by counting the number of ticks of a mechanical clock, or the vibrations of a quartz crystal, or the oscillations of the atoms in an atomic clock, between one event and another. We use light to observe the events we are timing. 

The events in a sequence are not necessarily dependent on each other - I don't quite see what you mean by that. All we need for this discussion is two separate events, plus the moving dial or counters of the clock, plus our surveyor scope to measure the position of each event.

If two events we are comparing or timing are in differently moving frames of reference, we have to at least correct for the time it will take light to reach us from each event.

If a third observer compares the times of events in two other frames of reference which are moving at different velocities, he will get different results, even after correcting for the time it will take for light to reach him from each event, depending on his velocity, observing exactly the same two events. This is the consequence of Einstein's Special Relativity. Do you understand and accept this?

Sorry, I missed that in my previous comment.

The events in sequence are cause and effect (result)

I don't see how they "are not necessarily dependent".
The measuring event is in motion, and the motion becomes part of the cause for the returned result.

We can check this by putting two clocks on two airplanes  
 

Ok, I may have mis-intepreted what you had in mind.

But still, the result of the moving clock is not dependant on what happens to the reference clock.

The possibility that the motion will effect the moving clock is what we are looking for.

And it has been done with clocks on two different planes. All of these experiments have confirmed Einstein's formulas.

As per the post I just put up, the actual experiment is done by comparing clocks, which I see may be what you had in mind.

So what is your problem with it? Are you saying we can't be sure the relative motion is what is causing the difference in the tick rate of the clocks?

Or are you suggesting the clocks are not measuring 'real' Time?

If i can jump in real quick, I think Truden is using some really ambiguous language that might make it seem like he is saying something different from what he means.

This is true according to einstein's perception of time as well. Two events that appear simultaneous to one observer in his rest frame will appear to take place at two different times to a second observer that has a non zero velocity relative to the first observer.

I'm going to try to restate this in a way that makes sense. "In each [frame of reference] the [order of events] is different from the [order of events in the other frame of reference] and [the events] depend on each other in their [frame of reference]. The measuring event (I think you mean the standard of measure used to give a specific time value, as in one tick of a clock would be the measuring event) depends on [its] relative speed, and obviously [will record] different [time] values.

the two events do not depend on each other, that implies some sort of force or interaction. The order of events as perceived by an observer will change if the the observer changes his frame of reference. We can make the events observers in themselves, so the order of events as observed by one event will be different than the order of events as perceived by the other event if the events are moving relative to one another.  If we have two identical clocks that are both at rest relative to one another, they will tick exactly in sync. As soon as one clock is put into motion while the other stays at rest than both clocks will immediately start ticking out of sync. How far off they will be depends on how fast one is moving relative to the other. Both clocks will perceive that the other clock changed while they stayed the same. The order of events depends on the reference frame that you choose to be in but not on the events themselves which is hopefully what you were trying to say.

The clocks will register different time values if they are moving relative to one another as long as they measured the same time value when they were at rest relative to one another. This difference proves that time "moves" faster or slower in one frame of reference that is moving relative to another frame of reference. Each frame of reference will be equally correct and neither will be preferred by the laws of physics.

Each event will observe the other event to have changed (slow down or speed up. Which one depends on the frame of reference you are in). Which is what i think you are trying to say??

To bring up the twin paradox: Put my twin on a rocket. While the rocket is at rest we both are aging at the same rate. Now accelerate his rocket close to the speed of light. My twin will not age any different relative to his normal perception. For him in his frame of reference, time will not have changed. The same thing applies to me, i will not perceive any difference. But, if i observe my twin years later after he has slowed down, he will appear to be and actually be younger than me because he "passed through" less time than me. Relative to my frame of reference, time slowed down for him. Relative to his frame of reference time has speed up for me and i will appear older. How much older depends on how fast he was going relative to me. 

You still don't quite get it.

In the case of an observer watching two different clocks moving at different velocity relative to his frame, he will see the clocks running at different speeds, the clock in the one moving faster appearing to run slower. There is no 'measured' and 'measuring' event, there are just two clocks, with the count of ticks on one frame appearing to fall behind the clock on the other.

If we have an observer on each of two frames of reference moving with respect to each other, each observer will see the other clock moving slower than the one beside them. There is no real difference between the two frames from the view-point of a third observer. If the other frames are moving at the same speed relative to the third observer, their clocks will appear to to be ticking at the same rate, and slower than one beside the third observer. This is at the same time as each observer on the original moving frames will see the clock on the other running slower than the one on their own frame.

Do you understand? Each clock on the original pair of frames is experiencing the same velocity with respect to the other. There is no meaning to saying one is moving and one is not. There is no absolute velocity. It seems to be a paradox - it is impossible for each clock in a pair to really run slower than the other.

General relativity resolves this paradox. The problem in Special Relativity is that you cannot start with two synchronised clocks, which are then put on two different aircraft, flown on different speeds and tracks, and then brought back together at in a common frame of reference to compare them, without subjecting them to many changes of velocity, which means we cannot use special relativity alone to calculate what time (tick count) they will show at the end of the process. Unless you can bring the two clocks back together, there is no actual paradox.

Every change in velocity means they are subjected to acceleration, which is not relative, and 'really' slows down the clock. If we do the calculations taking acceleration into account, the paradox disappears - the clock subject to most acceleration will have fallen behind the other. 

So actually you are partially correct, but it is not 'kinetic energy', which a function of velocity squared, which causes the final time discrepancy, it is acceleration/deceleration. IOW change in velocity, not velocity itself. The one subject to the most velocity change will be the one that has slipped behind when you bring them back together. 

It is cumulative count of successive 'events' in the form of ticks which is being compared - the number of such events is the measure of effective time duration.

The only causality which is ultimately relevant here is the effect of acceleration ( 'g-forces' ) on the rate at which time appears to pass, as measured by some regular physical process such as a spring and balance wheel, or vibrating atoms. All theory and experiment confirms that the effect applies equally to every object experiencing that acceleration.

It did not say a clock tick is not an event. But to concentrate on the individual events and their 'relationship in the way you seem to is to not see the forest for the trees.

It is the continually changing count of ticks that is the measure of elapsed time, not the 'motion' of any event, which doesn't quite make sense, because you are using 'event' in a everyday sense, not the way it is used in Physics. I hope you see this is one reason why a scientist will find your account confusing.

The only 'motion' involved is the changing counter or dial of the clock.

One second is a standard measure of the dimension of Time, just as one meter is a standard measure of spatial dimension.

Clocks are designed so that the rate of ticking is as consistent as possible, and as high as possible relative to how accurately we wish to measure Time. They can only measure time in terms of the number of discrete ticks ( 'tick events' if you like ). Beyond establishing that the rate at which ticks occur is as consistent as possible, the detail of how we go from one tick to the next does not give us any insight into Time.

Motion is NOT an EVENT, in the language of physics and relativity. That is totally wrong. 

From Wikipedia:

So the elapsed time is a measure of the 'distance' along the Time dimension between two events, not the duration of one event. This misuse of the word 'event' in this context confuses the issue.

The number of ticks that are counted starting from the occurrence of the first event until the second event occurs is a measure of the separation in the Time dimension between the two events, in the frame of reference that the clock is in.

We do not compare the apparent passage of time in two frames of reference tick by tick, we compare the change in the tick count on one timer with the change in count on the other for some reasonable period of time. If we want an estimate of apparent elapsed time within 1% accuracy, we need the slowest clock to have ticked at least 100 times.

The difference is only proof that they appear to be running at different rates as viewed from the reference frame of the observer.

The observer 'sees' the counts at the start and at the finish of the timing period. "Sees" refers to whatever means is actually used to transfer the reading on the tick counters, or the position of the dial, etc of each clock back to the reference frame of that observer. This could hypothetically be with a telescope, but in practical experiments it will be as data transmitted via radio or possibly a laser beam. The important thing is to get the counts while the clocks are actually moving.

The 'kinetic energy' is not relevant, it is the relative velocity, plus any acceleration, so we need a matching record of the position, tick by tick, to allow us to compare the velocity and acceleration over the timing period, with the rate at which the clock is ticking. They also need to record the 'g' force experience by the clock, since this is also affects the rate at which time passes in that frame of reference. This would be measured directly by a precision accelerometer.

There are two distinct aspects of the experiments, one concerned with the predictions of Special Relativity, which are concerned only with observations from frames of reference moving at a constant velocity in a straight line in the absence of gravity, and General Relativity, where you take the effects of gravity and acceleration into account.

You really seem to have completely misunderstood the effects of Special Relativity. 

If two spacecraft or airplanes are moving at constant velocity away from each other, each one will observe that the clock in the other craft is appears to be running slower than the one in his craft. Now part of this is simply due to the fact that the radio or laser signal which is carrying the information on the clock reading in the other craft is going to be taking longer to get back to him as the other craft is continually getting further away. But even after allowing for this, there will still be a discrepancy.

Each one will see the other's clock apparently running slow when compared to his.

There are no 'moving' and 'motionless' frames of reference, in an absolute sense. In this example. Each observer sees, or measures with instruments, the other craft moving away from his at the same speed. This idea really does allow many apparent paradoxes, like the famous Twins Paradox. But most, if not all, of those are not describable purely within the 'constant speed in a straight line' condition that Special Relativity applies to. The Twins Paradox, which has one twin travelling at high speed away from the Earth and back, who has therefore been subject to acceleration, in getting up to speed, slowing down and accelerating back in the direction of home, then slowing back to a stop relative to Earth, whereas the one who stayed at home hasn't been, which explains how he will have aged relative to his twin. 

Your idea is roughly consistent with the effects of gravity and acceleration, ie, General Relativity. NOT kinetic energy, though. We observe that light emitted by atoms from very dense stars appears to be 'red-shifted', ie, slowed in rate of time passing relative to an observer (us) viewing or measuring it from a lower gravity environment. It isn't just that clocks run slow, everything runs slower in a high gravity environment, which is exactly equivalent to saying that Time is running slower in that environment. And note, there is no general movement involved there, so no "kinetic energy". Just the thermal vibrations of the atoms, which is itself slowed in the strong gravitational field.

I have read your account, and I have tried to make sense of it, and pointed out problems like using words in different ways to how they are used in scientific descriptions, where it is vitally important that we all understand exactly what all our words refer to.

Can you possibly admit that you may have got something at least slightly wrong? I am basing my explanations on established science. You are trying to explain what you see as an error in the science, so you need to justify carefully why you disagree, and be prepared to adjust your 'theory' when errors are pointed out. 

Your stubborn insistence that I haven't understood what you are saying whenever I don't agree with it is still annoying.

I assume that you have nothing to say (argue) about my last comment on Time and you finally decided to look into the definitions.
Well, I can only say thank you, Bob.

My last comment reflects my definition, therefore it is the right one, and science must adopt it for use.
All definitions that deffer from the one proposed by me are wrong.
The above statement is based on basic logic.

This comment of mine is the end of my "point of exit".
I have nothing more to say on the discussed matter.

---

I thank you all for helping me to take in account some of the arguments that might be critical for the right explanation of Time.

I think that Rational Responders must be proud that it is one of the first participants where the issue about the Time was discussed and cleared from the delusional understanding. 
I am a man who works as a carpenter, but I might as well be a man who did not find the same satisfaction in science as he found in the woodwork.
The man doesn't matter.
I don't matter.
What matters is the truth which sometimes stays beneath our understanding, not as foundation but as covered treasure.

Thank you All.
 

Umm, so you have no comment on my long post just before that one, where I went into some detail about various aspects of your ideas and how they related to Einstein's theories??

This is a sarcastic comment, I have to assume, because it totally devoid of logic. It is correct because you thought it up? WTF?

Or did you really read my previous post and this is your reaction to my pointing out a few more of your basic errors and referring to your stubborn refusal to re-examine your theory in the light of my comments?

Pissed-off because no-one took your confused ideas very seriously - oh well, none so blind as those who refuse to see...

Look, I fully understand that there can and will be progress beyond Einstein, and scientists are exploring new ideas about 'Time' all the time, of course.

But when you do not seem to quite understand Einstein's ideas, and make such basic errors, as I kept pointing out, and which you refused to acknowledge, it is hard to take you seriously.

But I honestly cannot see that you have anything that really amounts to a useful new concept here.

I do think I get the core idea what you are trying to say, but it really is not that different from what some others have already proposed, but they have expressed it more clearly and much better related to what has already been established about the subject.

I have been trying to help you, by pointing out some basic problems in your arguments.

Most of your starting point are entirely unremarkable, and already understood:

1. In a 'Universe' containing just one object, we cannot meaningfully talk about time, OK. We cannot even talk about motion, so even saying it is 'motionless' is meaningless.

2. It is not so much 'events' we need to have time, it is change, even continuous change, which is not really well described by talking about events. This is where you start to go 'off the rails'.

3. If two objects are moving away from each other, that is all we need to be able to talk about time. The movement would be observed and measured with light, or are you assuming there is not even light in this hypothetical universe?

4. If the increase in distance between the two objects is observable, we can meaningfully refer to their relative velocity is (that is the more precise term to use here, since it includes the direction as well as the magnitude of velocity).

I am not using velocity ('speed') to prove time. It is not time that requires there to be 'speed', to 'prove' it, it is the existence of motion that requires there to be a dimension of Time to make it even possible. I think you have it backwards.

The absence of any discrete 'events' is not relevant, just change. Change is what needs Time. This is your basic error.

To measure Time consistently we do use repeated events which we have reason to believe are consistent and therefore assumed to occur at equal intervals of time.

Now here is another thought - imagine that one object is a long rod with regular marks on it, and the other object is moving past close to it along its length. Then we can measure time by how far the other object has moved along the length of the first object. That is all we need!!

If you insist on 'events', then consider: as the other object passes each mark on the first object, that is sufficient to define an event!

All events occur in space and time, by definition.

Two objects moving past each other is indeed sufficient to define events and so mark the passage of time.

If you had defined the objects as two ideal geometric points, then 'space' would be a problem, since you would have no reference for distance. But if at least one object has a finite physical size, then we have some reference to express the distance between them, and that then allows change to be defined, ie changes in the ratio between separation and size of at least one object. Change is the minimum requirement for Time to be meaningful, or alternatively, 'change' only can occur if there is a dimension of Time.

If you want to express it in terms of events, then each event can be defined to be when the distance between the objects reaches a whole number times the diameter of one of the objects.

There, I have analysed your idea, as presented in your first post. It is ultimately trivial, I am sorry.

Most of your ideas are not new, the rest are based on misunderstandings, such as what is necessary to define an 'event'.

screw it... double post.

If you think that is bad, you need to consider how childishly illogical nature can be.

Anyway, while you guys were having fun I read through it all once again, and I fail to see how anything in Mr. Truden's proposition is inconsistent with my stating that time = gravity (non-spatial relation between events and yada yada). Consequently, instead of stating for instance that gravity warps spacetime, we can observe how an increase in local gravity moves towards and finally reaches a "boiling point" from whence it approaches a shift in existential conditions (an event horizon) before collapsing out of measurable spacetime coordinates alltogether.

Time in an isolated context can be both the temporal difference between events A and B as the duration of event C (which can even include the set A,B). There is no "continuum" of time that doesn't include variables in the gravitational field.