I disagree, firstly because "time" has no actual meaning without context. Not because of the philosophical "if a tree falls in a forest etc" but because it has so many variable meanings etc. Its wierd because in one sentence we it can be referred to as something that is objective and behaves in a expected way. In another sentence it can be a part of theory and behaves theoritically or hypothetically or fantastically. So really how is "time" expected to behave seeing that its purely subjective and needs a referance for context? Im still messing with some fun ides and hopefully post em when I have enough existance
even though the faster you go the slower time moves, you can see that im actualy going faster. Lets say in a car. if im going on the highway with 200 kmph you can see that im moving faster then all the other objects im passing by. So if im going with lightspeed, you'll see me vanish. Im not good at this science stuff, i just like reading em, sorry if my question is stupid.
What you're saying above both is and isn't true to be fair, but time is relative, not 'subjective'. Time dilation isn't caused for example by our perception of time changing, we can prove that by sending atomic clocks the opposite ways around the earth; they aren't conscious and time changes differently for each of them. Also, it has meaning, that we can use math to imagine what time might do under certain circumstances doesn't make it any less real. Time is a wonderful thing, but it isn't non-existent, or something just dreamed up by man. Keep us posted MelT
At worst its interesting even the inbetweens. How much of relativity exist objectively. Is the meaning in defining how the actual "term" itself is relevant the science.
Sorry in advance. Gravity is linked to time, but that has nothing at all to do with the speed of rotation of a planet and/ or it's orbital period. A day, or year is simply a unit of time that we have created, so defining a link between gravity and that would be for me illogical. Gravity (as Einstein put it) is a result of a bend in the fabric of space-time (unrelated in this sense to planetary movement). This means that the deeper an object lies in this trough, the stronger the effect on the speed of time (on earth, 1 second per second). Lets put this into perspective The GPS satellites orbiting 36000 miles above the earth have a weaker attraction to the earth than we do, so their time travels slower than ours. The atomic clocks placed in these actually tick slower than those here on earth. This is Einstein's theory of special relativity. He also described a theory of general relativity whereby time slows down as you reach the speed of light. Due to these laws, our GPS satellites have to make adjustments for an 11Km error, so don't immediately assume that this stupid space science bollocks doesn't affect you.
Motion... It's simply change. I'm fairly certain it's still thought today if you could get a system to 100% absolute zero, time would not exist in that system. Unfortunately (or fortunately) if what we think about quantum mechanics currently is true, it prevents 100% absolute zero.
11 kms makes the idea that a man made clocks is a the measure of existance as we understand it to behave? You say "time" travels slower? What is contained in this subjective bubble of "time" what does it even consist of??? other than photon merry go round all the above is out of context to our known reality relative to existance. if anything this kind of assuming just confuses the general public to accept a notion. Think about it, (lets put it in perspective) your defining a imagined reality thats in conflct with your own perception. Its bogus and outdated. Learn why theoritically "time" needs to behave in that "fashion." Speed of light being coeherced by a undefined concept of "time" relative to gravity although is actuality is comparative to speed, being its constant. I dont think so.
So your response on what it means to you beomes morec lear when considering " 100% absolute zero, time would not exist in that system. Unfortunately (or fortunately) if what we think about quantum mechanics currently is true, it prevents 100% absolute zero. ?
You will know all the answers after you die. And i'm willing to bet the questions won't even matter. We will flush space and time down the toilet, wash our hands and walk away. Forget about it.
Exactly...some famous physicist said "Time is what a clock measures". Another famous physicist said time is what keeps everything from happening at once, and space keeps everything from happening at the same place." the rest is just how we coordinate this geometrically.
Although for fun, existance of everything unfolds into instance of a unknown space. A clock measures only after the fact? A clock measurement is a man made luxury nothing more. The famous physicist isnt defining anything other than the benifits of a hypothethetical buffer for the sake of events not life relative to existance.
I think that's the whole point here, we do not fully understand our place in this universe, by that I mean that what we call time means nothing on a cosmic scale. Maybe one day we might know enough to see the whole picture.... Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes. Oscar Wilde
Ok so this idea is assumimg we had the matterials to withstand it. But if moving closer to light speed allowed you to move slower in time would have a doughnut shape object spinning at light speed with another smaller object spinning the oppsite direction allow you to "stop" time or allow it to move backwards through time? Or would it just cancel itself out and travel normally? Sent from my LM-Q710(FGN) using Grasscity Forum mobile app
All I know is that I've lost a lot of weight since this thread was made. So in my case, the longer I travel through space time, the more mass I shed and the less I feel the pull of gravity.