The question as posed in 4 words is ingenious.

Have you noticed or measure some change in the rate of time as you describe? I expect all you are describing is the psychological passage of time. While that is interesting, it is not exactly foundational physics.

And you have to make a distinction between time as a choice of coordinates on 4-d space-time and the time as measured by observers. By "time moving" you mean the arrow of time, or what?

And time if not a force, just as position is not. It is the curvature of space-time is what we see as gravity.

I guess you should re-study general relativity again.

JWR: I have noticed that there are days which run faster or slower.

There is variation of the Earth's rate of rotation as measured by atomic clocks but as it is of the order of milliseconds in years, I do not think you could measure it other than with a good quality atomic clock:

https://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html

I have studied general relativity and understand, Albert Einstein:

"Wenn ein Mann eine Stunde mit einem hübschen Mädchen zusammensitzt, kommt ihm die Zeit wie eine Minute vor. Sitzt er dagegen auf einem heißen Ofen, scheint ihm schon eine Minute länger zu dauern als jede Stunde. Das ist Relativität.“

But I have to argue that it is strange that I sense this phenomenon happening during the times I describe. And yes, it could be psychological, but it happens only during that time, so is there is a link? Of course, Einstein does mention the energy of the stove causing the change in perception of time. What if the stove was cold? And instead of a pretty girl, it was your mother? Then again, people in one study were asked if they can guess a length of time and in almost every case they failed. But, then again, it was show that ball players could perceive things faster because having to watch a ball whiz by a plate improved their reaction time and a lot of ball players could see the flick of a light bulb at 60 hz. I fenced for twenty plus years and I can see the flicker of the light bulb. I have a very quick reaction time, and excellent timing. And by the way, good science questions even established and accepted science ideas if it is to push and test the current paradigm. And just remember quantum mechanics and general relativity has never been reconciled to this day. Another fact is we are not even sure what consciousness or our perception of reality is and how it interacts with matter on the quantum level. It is just a matter of putting the idea to the test.

Jonathan Wayne Riddle

" Of course, Einstein does mention the energy of the stove causing the change in perception of time. What if the stove was cold? And instead of a pretty girl, it was your mother? "

I have to ask, sorry. You can never really tell on here. You do fully realise that these are jokingly phrased analogies?

" And yes, it could be psychological, but it happens only during that time, so is there is a link?"

From what you have said, I think it is completely psychological. Time appears to run at different rates depending on the situation we are in. But that is how it appears. To have some real effect in physics you need to measure something.

So, I think your question is really a question in psychology or something like that and not physics. It is interesting, but not fundamental physics.

Dear Johnathan, I think, you are thinking very locality, time is relative. Maybe this article clear some. https://www.academia.edu/38071066/Time_is_Relative Best

I am not arguing against relativity. Of course, being told it is psychological, a psychological passage of time does not explain anything without defining what a "psychological passage of time" means. In this article, Einstein's theory is proved - and it is bad news if you own a penthouse (Conor, 2010), a study using two clocks just a foot apart, the clock that was higher ran faster, then the one closer to the Earth, and that was because the closer an object is to the Earth the stronger the gravitational field, and therefore it runs slower. So perhaps it was some kind of fluctuation in the speed of time that I was experiencing due to a change in gravity. If you have fluctuations in a gravitational field I assume time could fluctuate between the pull of the objects, even oscillate if it has a regular period. And there are lots of external forces outside our solar system causing changes to the gravitational field within our solar system. Now the question is it possible for someone could to be sensitive to these changes? Time might not be a force (which I never stated that it was, it just a thought, an idea), but obviously it is influenced by the gravitational fields surrounding us. As I pointed out, the sun was putting out some heat that day. And as the sun converts mass to energy there is loss of mass, which could change gravity therefore causing changes in the speed of time. According to Siegel (2019), "on a year-by-year basis, the Sun loses some 4.7 million tons of matter, which lessens the gravitational pull on every object in our Solar System" which would mean according to the experiment described earlier would cause changes in the speed of time.

References

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/einsteins-theory-is-proved-and-it-is-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/03/earth-is-drifting-away-from-the-sun-and-so-are-all-the-planets/#1efe3d06f7d3

Jonathan Wayne Riddle

"So perhaps it was some kind of fluctuation in the speed of time that I was experiencing due to a change in gravity."

What do you think the scales of these changes would be? And I am not sure one could measure such changes as time is a local thing to the observer. As far as an observer watching a clock is concerned a second is a second. It is only when you compare the duration between events in different frames that you notice anything.

We do not need to even discuss gravity here, but just special relativity and say length contraction to highlight the point. It is only when one compares a 1m ruler (defined to be stationary ) with one that is moving with a constant velocity with respect to the stationary ruler that we notice that the two rulers do not agree on the length of something. The moving ruler is shorter when compared with the stationary one. However, the person with the moving ruler still sees his/her ruler to be 1m. It is a relative thing and not absolute.

Just because '"it feels a longer time" does not mean that it was. That is why in science we like to make measurements. So, how did you notice some days run faster or slower?

"Now the question is it possible for someone could to be sensitive to these changes?"

The answer is basically, no. You would need two observers and compare their results. I am not exactly sure how you would do this.

"...without defining what a "psychological passage of time" means."

You can start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception

Thanks for the link, I am familiar with time perception. I am familiar with a lot of what is described (my background is in physiology and kinesiology). Well, considering I was not trying to make a point to directly observe what was happening, it was just something I experienced. I only have observed this when the sun is the most intense. So this not a daily experience or something I experienced all of the time (which if it was physiological I would be experiencing time perception changes with some frequency, everything described in the Wikipedia article involves some level of neurophysiology). It could be a physiological response to the suns intensity. One could survey people to see if they have experienced what I have experienced when the sun is the most intense and if they experience a time dilation. How can I measure time without a watch? If I am walking and know my pace and the distance I am walking, and if I am walking non-stop (learned this in the army, you average out your pace count number of steps/100 meters, or another option is to measure your average walking speed). While I have never noticed time speeding or slowing down when I am walking and I have a good idea of how long it takes to get to some place that I know the distance. My estimate is very close to the time on my watch. Or like today working on this in bed, time did not feel like it was going fast or slower. I am just pointing out that it is not something I experience in 99% of the time. But, one does "feel" an estimate from experience the rate of speed in a car without looking at the speedometer. I know measuring is the most accurate. ( I also know from public health, people's experiences can be scaled and measured with the right questions). Then there is the question of causation and what is the physiological link. I just want to point out that every athlete consciously or not knows that gravity plays a role on what their body does or on the equipment they are using, so if there was a change in gravity for example, they might be aware of it. And the effects of gravity is only based on "feeling." I have to point, there have been a number of times when I have awoken at certain time, even when my alarm has failed, or knew the time without looking at a watch, only to be verified by someone with a watch. I wrote before I fenced 20 plus years, it has allowed me the ability to make subtle observations. And my ability to time an action is all based on "feeling." I am not measuring the speed of an attack and the time it take to parry and the time I have to follow with a riposte. But, I do know if an opponent is slow or fast, or has change their speed throughout an action. And all these actions are done while maintaining distance (advancing or retreating) and while trying to score 5 touches in 3 minutes. And I am doing all of this while working out a tactic, or strategy, developing an action. Timing of the action is dependent on how quickly you observe and react to an action. Of course, you can give yourself more time by changing distance, retreating or stepping back. And some people are more gifted at this than others. And how well we observe anything is dependent on experience. I have also observed enough fencing bouts to also know if a fencer is slow or fast, and can sense the time of their actions even if I am not directly in front of the person. So I have no idea if something around me is changing or not.

The difference between ground level and the GPS satellites at an altitude of over 20 thousand km is 38 microseconds per day. Any ground effect would be much less than that. The experience was completely one of perception, not a physical change.

George Dishman You are probably correct. The average reaction time for a person is between 200-200 ms, with training 190-200 ms (video game players 120 ms) and this to visual stimulus (Pontius, 2017). According to Zogby (2017), the average rate at which a person perceives the world is on average 10 mental snapshots per second and this can be altered with stimulants like drugs, while "the speed at which we experience the flow of time is nothing but the speed of our thoughts,...the faster mental snapshots flow in our mind, and the slower time appears to run." Perhaps my brain was running fast because I was studying at the time and listening to some sounds which are meant to stimulate the brain causing my mental snapshots to speed up and my perception of time shifted. However, I have to still point out that this shift happens only on certain days when the sun is the most intense and it rarely happens to me, but I have experienced this more than once in my life.

As an experienced and well trained fencer, one has to make multiple observations about an opponent in less than a second e.g. is the opponents arm moving forward as they advance, where is the arm while he is advancing or retreating and can I hit the target during my opponent's action, while making movements with my own arms and legs. Some actions are on autopilot, but deciding what action to take is not, and an experienced and well trained fencer will not just react (go into autopilot) but must think before deciding what to do. (I have to point out I was fencing coach for a number of years, so I have seen lots of observations on behaviors from a range of fencers).

While a study performed by Charron and Koechlin the brain can handle at least two task at the same time because the brain has two hemispheres (Telis, 2010). I point this out that it is possible to make two separate observations at the same time at that is visually (we not discussing other senses). So one could make multiple observations of two separate events at the same time.

What I am trying to point out is that the argument that human observation is faulty and the mind/brain is basically unable to make accurate estimations or accurately record them. So do you trust your senses and what you observe?

I had a physics professor ask the class if anyone knew how tall he was. I raised my hand and said, you are 6 foot 4 inches. He looked at me in surprise and shock and responded with, "you must have calibrated eyes, because that is correct I am 6 foot 4." I have made reference observations (I have an uncle is 6 foot 4 inches for example), and I am 5 foot 7 inches. I had a fencing student tell me he was 6 feet, when he was shorter than me. To his shock when he found out he was 5 foot 6 inches.

References

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-fastest-human-reaction-time-ever-recorded

https://www.quora.com/If-my-reaction-time-was-100-times-faster-than-normal-would-my-perception-of-time-be-altered

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/multitasking-splits-brain

Jonathan Wayne Riddle

"So do you trust your senses and what you observe? "

Depending on what you mean exactly here, I would say no. This is why we measure things in science.

Jonathan, I trust my senses to a degree but I also know their limitations. I can hear an error of 0.1s in music playing at 120 beats per minute but I know you can't detect an error of less than one billionth of a second in a day. The first is an error of 5%, the second is 0.000000000001%.

Dear Johnathan

Well, MY THEORY. the clock goes slower in lower level, it is because of atmosphere's pressure, it is nothing to do with gravity. Do you think, if earth had gravity, then, earth would have rain?

Article Quantum Mechanics Gravity, Mechanical Gravity of Newton is Myth

JF: Well, MY THEORY. the clock goes slower in lower level, it is because of atmosphere's pressure,

Atomic clocks have a fountain of individual caesium atoms, they operate with a very hard vacuum inside the device.

JF: Do you think, if earth had gravity, then, earth would have rain?

Obviously, a raindrop is heavier than the same volume of air. If Earth didn't have gravity, you would be thrown off by centrifugal force.

George Dishman what if that whisper became a roar only for a second like in Horton Hears a Who. When I think about it, it was not something I saw, or hear, but more sensed or felt throughout my body, but only for a short burst of time. Today for example, I am a little under the weather, and normally when I get like this I get anxious, and according to some that could change my time perception, which it has not happened.

Andrew James Bruce I agree with you measuring is the gold standard in science, but critical observation is also important in making discovers.

Dear George Have seen dropping feather and hammer in vacuum in youtube? both of them comes down at the same time. Where is the Gravity to pull heavier element faster, cause of more mass more gravity. An atomic clock is occupy 100% of space of universe. It is not vacuum as you think. Space of universe (in the atom) is very much sensitive in pressure and temp. which it cause that fraction of discrepancy, and quantum mechanics atom is not working mechanically to be effected my mechanical gravity that we believe.

If the earth had gravity, the dropping of rain would be pointing down, not resisted to the mass of oxygen, and in the first place earth would not had rain to begin with, because massive of earth's mass would not let little mass of Water go up. The reason we call walk on earth is not Newton or Einstein gravity, it is a Quantum mechanics phenomenon. I suggest read best and thank you sharing ur thought. Article Quantum Mechanics Gravity, Mechanical Gravity of Newton is Myth

Javad Fardaei interesting. I will take a look it.

JF: both of them comes down at the same time.

Correct, the same time.

JF: Where is the Gravity to pull heavier element faster,

As you said, they fall the same distance in the same time so fall at the same speed, neither is faster.

JF: An atomic clock is occupy 100% of space of universe

ROFL, no.

A couple of SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_precise_definition_of_time_And_what_is_the_easiest_way_to_describe_time#view=5d4feef6a4714b3df138b8c6

- are relevant to this thread’s question.

Cheers

George, you repeat my own sentence in different form, and about 100% of space of universe! You said no. is it means, the clock outside of space of universe ?

Javad, you said this:

JF: An atomic clock is occupy 100% of space of universe

When I said no, I meant that even the largest atomic clocks are pieces of equipment that fit in a room, and many can be bought that can be mounted in an equipment rack. There is no way you can seriously say that a clock occupies the whole volume of the universe.

George, I said space of universe, I did not say " clock occupies the whole volume of the Universe" Think of a gas atom, when we decrease one degree temperature, gas atom lose 1/273 its volume or space. The space of universe is smart-space. The atomic clock occupies smart-space of universe, it act on temperature and pressure all the time. It is not mechanical gravity that Newton or Einstein are saying, that in basement the clock ticking slower and in attic goes faster, this perception is absolutely is incorrect. I am not just challenging the smart-space, and also, challenging that an atom is smart as well. best

Dear Javad,

JF: I said space of universe, I did not say " clock occupies the whole volume of the Universe"

You said "An atomic clock is occupy 100% of space of universe." and 100% is the whole of anything. Perhaps it is a problem of translation, I take it that English is not your primary language.

JF: Think of a gas atom, when we decrease one degree temperature, gas atom lose 1/273 its volume or space

No, the atom is unchanged. The motion a large number of atoms in a gas slows down so they are less far apart but the atoms don't change at all.

Dear George I love the way we communicate, because we have communication problem. One of my theory is: space of the universe has character, act to temperature and pressure.

GD. No, the atom is unchanged. The motion a large number of atoms in a gas slows down so they are less far apart but the atoms don't change at all.

What you mean by " They are less far apart?" I know atom always stay the same, less apart mean less pressure or less volume, and volume is space. Right?

If Yes.... this action is due to the space of universe.

Temperature is a measurement of the mean speed of the particles in a gas, no particles means no temperature.

JF: What you mean by " They are less far apart?"

I mean if you measured the distance between them with a ruler, the average spacing would be less if reduce the size of the container to maintain constant pressure.

If you keep the size the same, the volume and spacing stay the same when you drop the temperature of the gas but the speed decreases so the impact of each particle on the walls carries less momentum, we say it exerts less pressure.

You are absolutely right. The original discussion was, "Space of universe has CHARCTER". When we reduce temperature, at first, it is the space of an atom react, then the size of the atom reduce, and as result the speed of electron reduced. Thus, the electron is closer to center, and create less pressure. All I want to Article Quantum Intelligent Space