![]() ![]() Not that I'm proposing such a thing can happen, I'm just not sure why a volume of spacetime could not have time stopped in it and still have the atoms in it existing. I'm confused as to why you don't see a sort of "everything frozen, no events" scenario, like a cube of acrylic with bugs in it. If time, then events, matter, stuff, antispoons, you know. *By the way, I've come up with an aspect of time, but I don't know how to put it in words very well. (It must be event-free to satisfy the "no time" requirement.*) That would give us a space without time. In a thought experiment universe/space patterned after our own, if we remove/stop/freeze time, that space would go utterly void - no matter, no virtual particles, absolutely nothing. With kind deference to DaveCLargeinteger, who I think knows a lot more about this stuff than I do:ī. Regardless of what size space we examine within our universe, time is part of that space. With your permission, perhaps this could be restated as:Ī. ![]() So not only is distance forever correlated with time, it is also entirely dependent on the perspective of the observer. From our point of view, however, it takes about 8 minutes. Take the light from the sun as an example - from the light's point of view, travel is so fast as to be approximately instantaneous (I say approximately because it's not a complete vacuum, as it has to pass through the atmosphere of the Earth in order for us to view it). Us on the outside, however, would still view the trip as taking a certain amount of time. When I said something would have to travel at the speed of light, I meant the object (or person?) that was observing the travel to be instantaneous, and would therefore view any possible trip as having zero distance. I think of time as more of a continuum that can be stretched (slowing down) and compressed (speeding up). I'm not entirely sure it's meaningful to assign a rate to time at all, so to say it can pass with a certain speed is sort of playing fast and loose with the underlying concepts. Sorry but I can’t relate any of that to my question. Is time really bound exclusively to just space or are there other variables, if time really does exist that is? From the example of the falling cup (forementioned), it would seem that we must at least factor in gravity to get a correct calculation of space in both instances, if we are to keep time in the equation. If we lived eternally, without dying, without needing food, without the need to regenerate-or-die, would we even be worried about time? Is time real or just an illusion brought on by our limited lifespan? So we measure time as a function of recurrence, by which we can say 'so many recurrences and we finally cease to exist.' Is time real or merely a perception? We are only here for a certain amount of "time", as we see the sun come up and go down each day. We measure time by our finite definition of life. ![]() The distance is the same in both cases, but the time very different. it would take a different amount of "time" before it finally hit the ground. agreed? Now, drop that same cup from that same table while on the moon. Let's start with an example of time: If you dropped a cup from a table here on earth, it would take a certain amount of time for it to hit the ground. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |