The speed of light both sets the scales we see and the rate at which time traverses, so in some sense I would say this is true.
If the speed of light were slower, then things would be "larger" and time would go by slower. If the speed of light were faster, things would be "smaller" and time would go by faster...
...now, how would you actually KNOW it was larger or smaller? Both worlds would look the same, just scaled up or down--this is why there is NO error in the speed of light. We do NOT measure the speed of light, we define it and this defines the length and time.
a meter is DEFINED as:
"the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 ⁄ 299,792,458 of a second."
So notice that this both sets the time AND distance!
If the speed of light were slower, then things would be "larger" and time would go by slower. If the speed of light were faster, things would be "smaller" and time would go by faster...
...now, how would you actually KNOW it was larger or smaller? Both worlds would look the same, just scaled up or down--this is why there is NO error in the speed of light. We do NOT measure the speed of light, we define it and this defines the length and time.
a meter is DEFINED as:
"the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 ⁄ 299,792,458 of a second."
So notice that this both sets the time AND distance!
-
No.
The speed of light is 300 thousand kilometers per second (in vacuum, because in media with differing refractive index the velocity will be different). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_…
The rate of time passing by, measured in an inertial frame of reference, is always the same: 1 second per second. Note that the physical parameters are different: the former is a distance divided by time, the other is a time by time.
The speed of light is 300 thousand kilometers per second (in vacuum, because in media with differing refractive index the velocity will be different). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_…
The rate of time passing by, measured in an inertial frame of reference, is always the same: 1 second per second. Note that the physical parameters are different: the former is a distance divided by time, the other is a time by time.
-
Not likely... time has been defined as an illusion created by motion. Moreover in order to answer this question it would be necessary to first clarify the phrase 'the speed of time'. What is the speed of time ?
It is possible to refer to the flow rate of time but this cannot be equated to the velocity of light... these are two distinct and separate functions of space-time.
It is possible to refer to the flow rate of time but this cannot be equated to the velocity of light... these are two distinct and separate functions of space-time.
-
Well speed is a function of distance and time, time is just, well time. Your question makes as much sense as asking "is the speed of light also the speed of distance".
A great book I would recommend you read is "Why does E=mc2 (and why should be care?)" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw in which they discuss how time relates to space. The faster you go, the shorter space gets, and the slower you go, the longer space gets. Ie. the speed of any object through space-time is always constant. Some objects are moving more in a space dimension, others are moving more in a time dimension, but the magnitude is the same. Hope that helps.
A great book I would recommend you read is "Why does E=mc2 (and why should be care?)" by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw in which they discuss how time relates to space. The faster you go, the shorter space gets, and the slower you go, the longer space gets. Ie. the speed of any object through space-time is always constant. Some objects are moving more in a space dimension, others are moving more in a time dimension, but the magnitude is the same. Hope that helps.
-
uhm, no. Speed is the first derivitive of position with respect to time.
-
The speed of light is what connects time and space.