It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is motion time travel?

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I'm not a very sciencey guy. I pay attention but my actual knowledge is limited. I was just contemplating earlier and a question arose...

Is action itself a form of time travel?

Is moving through space actually moving through time?

I don't know what else to add to this thread but that is the gist of my thinking right now. This could possibly be well known science or not I have no idea so please feel free to educate me.




posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




Is moving through space actually moving through time?

Nope. Sort of.
Space is comprised of three dimensions. Time can sort of be considered a forth dimension, which gives us the Einsteinian concept of spacetime.

We are always moving through time. Funny thing is, we are always moving through space too.

Funnier (not funny, "ha ha"), is that all four of those "dimensions" are relative to where you are. No matter where you go, there you are.


edit on 2/27/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Does space exist within time and are the other three dimensions the construct?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Let's call it the Lithgow theory. Burp.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: kenzohattori69

I don't understand?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
It's strange to think that the faster you travel relative to the speed of light, your time frame becomes slower that the rest of the universe (in effect the rest of the universe speeds up). But time itself for you remains the same.

But what about Brownian motion, the random movement of atoms in solids, liquids and air due to constant bouncing off each other. If that is motion, then wouldn't that have some effect on the passage of time? Wouldn't a piece of oscillating crystal experience slower "time" than a non-oscillating crystal?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

Does space exist within time and are the other three dimensions the construct?


From that point of view, all are mathematical constructs. Convenient for modelling reality but in and of themselves, are not reality.

Drawing a cube on paper does not create an actual cube, it creates a representation of a cube.

edit on 2/27/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

The easy answer.

Yes.

Every second you can change the trajectory.

Isn't it beautiful?
A moment in time changing the future?

I love it. Goodness in every drop.





posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

How much of a roll does the observer play a roll in that effect?

If it's true that the observer essentially changes the experience of time than what is the observer in relation to time?

I don't know what true I'm just in a mood to hypothesize.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
It's strange to think that the faster you travel relative to the speed of light, your time frame becomes slower that the rest of the universe (in effect the rest of the universe speeds up). But time itself for you remains the same.


Actually, time itself for both the people who aren't moving near the speed of light, and the person that is moving at the speed of light both remains the same from their relative perspectives, and viewing each other time is moving slower, but at the same time the one moving faster will go through time at a slower pace.

Just to confuse the OP some more


It's called the twin paradox
edit on 27/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




It's called the twin paradox


Even more confusing; it's not a paradox at all.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ghost147




It's called the twin paradox


Even more confusing; it's not a paradox at all.


Indeed, it's actually perfectly rational. I don't see why it's even called a paradox in the first place.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Looking at something through math takes away from its shape and form though doesn't it?

Aren't metaphors better examples to communicate understanding?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Phage

Looking at something through math takes away from its shape and form though doesn't it?

Aren't metaphors better examples to communicate understanding?


That would depend on the individual. If you're dyslexic (like me) then you probably learn best through experience and visually.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

It's not that confusing I totally understand it real activity. That's my iPhone's way of saying relativity.

So they are both operating under the same set of rules but experiencing different outcomes based on how close to the source of the light.

Essentially.
edit on 2/27/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Ghost147
So they are both operating under the same set of rules but experiencing different outcomes based on how close to the source of the light.

Essentially.


It's actually just determined by speed. Even satellites and people on Space Stations will have a slight appearance of a reduction in time while in their positions, going at the speed they are going at

And I believe gravity, too. (not too sure about this one)


edit on 27/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Looking at something through math takes away from its shape and form though doesn't it?
Quite the contrary. It makes it possible to communicate the concept.


Aren't metaphors better examples to communicate understanding?
Numbers on paper are a metaphor.

π is an irrational number which represents the ratio between the radius of a perfect circle and its circumference. What's more metaphorical than that?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Just think, if we could travel very close to the speed of light, we could visit an uninhabited planet, put some bacteria on it, then go for a ride in our space ship for a couple of days, and then when we return hundreds of millions of years will have passed and the planet would be teaming with life.

I wonder, is that what happened on earth?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Some suggest time is not in flux but a fixed time landscape....Bend your mind around that



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Hmm. Yeah that is metaphorical.

But doesn't using metaphors that allow you to imagine it's shape and form give it more context and enable your imagination to really give it life in your mind?
edit on 2/27/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join