posted on Sep, 17 2019 @ 04:53 AM
originally posted by: Blue Shift
It's interesting that from an observer's point of view (non-Euclidean) distance equals time. The farther away something is from you, the farther back
in time it is.
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it, but it's all relative.
Say, for example, (hypothetically) you were looking at a tree which was one light year away from you. If you could travel at the speed of light
toward the tree it would take you one year to reach it. In that time the tree would have aged 1 year, and so would have you. On the other hand, if
you didn't move at all and just stood there and looked at the tree from a distance for one year...the tree would have aged one year, and so would you
have aged one year.
So, was the tree really in the past, or not?
In the first example there would be time dilation between you and someone who remained behind while you traveled to the tree and back, but there would
be no time dilation between you and the tree in either direction. So again, did the tree exist in the past from your point of origin, or did it exist
in the same time reference?
It's a paradox.
edit on 9/17/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)