A question about time... (not time travel)... (well.. maybe time travel)

[Super DurtSS10]

dawnseeker = smart

[Fallbreeze]

Something tells me that Dawn probably was hoping for a chance to weigh in on this.

[Demonhero]

One thing you said strikes me with thought Rota, and its the possibility that if we are moving, we are moving forward through time. Such a possibility can't be proven or disproven, since the only way to do that would be to stop all movement that affects us, which, in theory, would cause a minimum of a galactic cataclysm, and a maximum of a universal cataclysm, somewhat like if you're suddenly throwing a wrench into the gears of sophisticated and complicated machinery. You're bound to break a few parts putting a sudden stop to anything so massive.

And yet, if we could do such a thing and avoid certain destruction, if time is based off movement, then how would we know? Surely if the theory that movement = time is correct, then attempting to prove it would lead to the halt of time, forever.

And yet what if it was false? What then? This is where my mind fails me. If time is not based off movement, and we manage to cease movement without obliterating planets and galaxies, what would happen?

[Bree Fletcher]

I've got to correct one thing that's come up: Einstein (and other physicists) never said that light and other photons have no mass, period. What it is, is, photons have no rest mass. That is, if through some impossible occurance light were to stop moving, it would cease to have mass. The relativity equtions actually account for this; light, like everything else, increases in mass as it gains speed. And so a moving photon has mass, and is a kind of particle of matter, as well as being a wave.

[Rota]

One thing you said strikes me with thought Rota, and its the possibility that if we are moving, we are moving forward through time. Such a possibility can't be proven or disproven, since the only way to do that would be to stop all movement that affects us, which, in theory, would cause a minimum of a galactic cataclysm, and a maximum of a universal cataclysm, somewhat like if you're suddenly throwing a wrench into the gears of sophisticated and complicated machinery. You're bound to break a few parts putting a sudden stop to anything so massive.

And yet, if we could do such a thing and avoid certain destruction, if time is based off movement, then how would we know? Surely if the theory that movement = time is correct, then attempting to prove it would lead to the halt of time, forever.

And yet what if it was false? What then? This is where my mind fails me. If time is not based off movement, and we manage to cease movement without obliterating planets and galaxies, what would happen?

I can think of two non-destructive ways to test it.

1) Go to the core of the universe at the exact location where the big bang occurred. How does time move there, where theoretically there is no movement of any kind.

2) travel in EXACT opposition to the combined movement of planetary rotation, solar orbit, galactic orbit, and galaxy drift. Travel at the EXACT speed that combined movement is propelling us away from the universal center. This should counteract all movement factors and effectively hold you truly "still" in the universe.

There may be another way, but those are two ideas off the top of my head. I want to thank you for nailing my convoluted OP into a nice one-liner...

movement = time

Thanks.

Is "time" as we know it just an effect of speed. Is the cause of all perceived time just our movement through the universe?

[Rodri]

What If we were somehow able to travel to a point in deep space far enough away from any galaxies that the only lights in the black sky that looked like distant stars were indeed the few nearest galaxies? And then once we reached that point, we slowed our momentum to absolute stillness?

I guess we would still live a natural span (as long as all of our requirements for a healthy life were being met) for our species and our internal clock and natural desire for order would create or maintain a sense of normal time passing.

[Rota]

What If we were somehow able to travel to a point in deep space far enough away from any galaxies that the only lights in the black sky that looked like distant stars were indeed the few nearest galaxies? And then once we reached that point, we slowed our momentum to absolute stillness?

I guess we would still live a natural span (as long as all of our requirements for a healthy life were being met) for our species and our internal clock and natural desire for order would create or maintain a sense of normal time passing.

Let's say we send a 25 year old to this location and they live to an age of 75. In the 50 years of their lifetime, how much time will have passed on earth?

If true "stillness" means there is no time, then the 50 years would pass for the person, but it would be the blink of an eye for us on earth.

... if speed = time.

[imnothere]

A while back I made this post in a discussion about time travel.

It got me to thinking. We all know that time travel forward ONLY requires speed. If you travel the speed of light, a year can pass for the world, but it will only feel like a moment to you. We also know, from my statement above, that no matter how still we make ourselves, we are moving.

By just standing on the earth, we are hurtling at thousands of miles per second through the universe. The globe could cease it's rotation, and the earth could halt in it's orbit, and sun could stop it's orbit around the milky way. Even if all that came to a complete stop, and we froze in our position in the milky way, our galaxy is still hurtling through the universe at amazing speeds. We are always moving.

Here is my question. We all know time travel forward requires mere speed. Is the combined speed we are traveling on earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy, through the universe... is that the speed we are traveling forward through time? Is the rate of "time" we perceive based solely on the speed we are traveling through the universe?

If this is true, then other galaxies may be traveling at different speeds, and thus aging faster or slower than us. Things like the standard half-life of various chemicals and compounds within these galaxies would be the same as our perception. But, when viewed from our galaxy, it would appear to be faster or slower. Or would inorganic things like those half-lives not be affected by this speed difference?

Scientists have mapped the speed of the expansion of the universe. Everything is moving outward from a universal "center" where the big bang occurred. If everything is moving away from this center, then is there no movement at this core of our universe? Is there no time there, since there is no movement (like a time version of "absolute zero")?


I rambled quite a bit, and I confused myself just a bit. I hope I confused you, too. I look forward to your thoughts.

the sassy part of me wants to reply: i time travel all the time. what you do is you get in your car or on a plane and dive east. your going back in time. and if you turn around and drive west, you go forward in time.
then the neerdy part of me wants to snatch up that idea and your idea and say "why satisfy your self with only going forward in time. what you do is you grab your space ship and leave earth going away from where it is going and by the time you drive far enough to meet back up with earth it will be more froward of you then you are from where you started. like when your friend is running around the jungle gym and you suddenly reverse to catch them coming at you. it took you less time to get to the meeting spot then it took them so your relative time being shorter would therefor be behind earths.
we must ofcouse take into account DS's very good point that you have to speed up and slow down appropriately so as not to crash and kill your self and everyone else.

[Hired_Goon]

dawnseeker = smart

Apart from the errors, yes.

(e=ms^2), speed is a much greater determinant of energy than mass.

But seriously,

And then, voila, you've just time traveled. It stands to reason that creating some type of stasis chamber that halts body function without killing you would be simpler, less risky and have the exact same effect.

Presumably, you are suggesting cryogenics, here which is only a one way street.

But your logic on the requirements to physically move forward or backward in time as a whole human object is spot on.

I think people have been watching too much scifi, so I'm interested to see where this discussion ends up.

[TheRooster]

Watched an episode on time travel and there is a man who is attempting to buld a real time machine. he claimes that as soon as he completes it he will b receving messages from the future from himself through the machine which really caught my attintion. i love your random thoughts also rota as always.