Does movement through space create time?

Originally posted by watchitburn
I came across this study a while ago that showed how just our observation of atoms or molecules effected how they reacted to certain stimulis. I dont have time to look for it now, but I will look later and post.

I know of two off the top of my head.
schroeders cat in a box theory and the Feynman Double Slit experiment (this one gave us the "is it a partical or is it a wave" question. I love all this stuff, who needs a god when we have this to wrap our heads around

Originally posted by Xeven
The faster you move through space the slower time acts on the objects moving. It would seem to me if you slow down time would speed up.

To an outside observer watching you slow down, it looks to them like your time is speeding up, but inside your ship you can't tell any difference in the passage of time.

But what if you stoped in relation to space?

Well if you keep going slower and time keeps going faster for you as you slow down, then if you stop, time reaches the maximum speed.

If you want time to stop you need to approach the event horizon of a black hole, it won't stop for you inside your spaceship, but to an outside observer watching you enter the event horizon, it will look like time has stopped for you. We don't really know exactly what happens inside the event horizon but if time stops anywhere my guess would be that's where time would stop, inside the event horizon of a black hole. We can't even say Time stops inside the event horizon to outside observers because it's impossible for an outside observer to observe what's going on inside the event horizon, but since it looks like time stops AT the event horizon, it's not going to seem to get any faster once inside is my guess.

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
Xeven... that wasn't me who posted a link, was it? If it was I have a very bad short term memory.

the idea that it all started with a nudge and not a huge explosion is interesting indeed... but could you imagine how long it would take for just one nudge to create all that energy? God must be really damn old.

About the clocks, that is very interesting. how in the hell would that even be possible? I'm not even going to theorize. I guess I will read the ideas that they have already come up with if it's in short format.

Well if you consider quantum entanglement of particles it is possible they all moved with only one being nudged. Would not take long at all "if" that was the case it would all be instant just like in quantum entanglement.

Originally posted by Xeven
I am curious if movement through space actually causes time to exist? The faster you move through space the slower time acts on the objects moving. It would seem to me if you slow down time would speed up.

Time is a measurement of movement, so yes in a way movement creates "time". Personally I believe all things are infinite and "time" is nothing more than a tool man created to keep track of movements/changes.

But what if you stoped in relation to space? If you lanched a probe and sent it directly away from the path of our Galaxy to the point where it was at rest in space in relation to the speed our galaxy moves or in relation to the speed of light, would time even exist?

Well no object in space can be completely at rest, it is contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics. There is only the "perception" of "rest" or a perception of no movement. This is accomplished when two objects are traveling at the exact same speeds in the same direction. Much like when the car next to you on the highway is traveling the same speed as you. If you removed the background and road you would both appear to each-other as still or at rest.

Speed and time are relative to the "viewers" perspective, they change when your perspective changes. So long as there is an observable change from the viewers perspective "time" will appear to exist.

If that probe had a telescope what would it see in a place where time does not exist? Seems like this would be an easy experiment to test. if you turned on a laser on this probe would it even emit light or would that light be traped due to time not existing like in a black hole?

Not entirely sure I understand what you are asking here? If you were looking at an area complete devoid of time it would probably appear completely black and devoid of light/movement/objects (pitch blackness). The probe could not exist without movement for without movement mass cannot exist. Movement is required for atoms to even exist...

If an object is not moving in relation to space does time exist?

space is moving so everything within it moving in relation to it. Objects may possibly appear completely stationary in relation to the universe when the speeds are exactly the same in the same direction, but because space is moving in all directions I don't particularly see this as possible, from any viewer perspective.

We don't really know exactly what happens inside the event horizon but if time stops anywhere my guess would be that's where time would stop, inside the event horizon of a black hole.

I've got this filed under Smiler Grogan and the purloined letter but I can't find the video out on the web?

I've often wondered if the universe might be moving at the speed of light, hence all the space!

Originally posted by Bordon81
I've got this filed under Smiler Grogan and the purloined letter but I can't find the video out on the web?

I searched smiler grogan and found this toobworld.blogspot.com... and I still don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

Two objects A) and B) travelling at the speed of light in opposite directions. From the perspective of object A), would object B) be travelling at 2X the speed of light? From the perspective of object B), would object A) be travelling at 2X the speed of light?

If this is true then faster than speed of light is possible no?

Originally posted by Sly1one
Two objects A) and B) travelling at the speed of light in opposite directions. From the perspective of object A), would object B) be travelling at 2X the speed of light? From the perspective of object B), would object A) be travelling at 2X the speed of light?

If this is true then faster than speed of light is possible no?

The speed of light is relativistic, so no matter what your frame of reference light would still be observed as travelling 186,282 miles per second faster.

Sounds crazy but its true.

Is this to say that if the world stops spinning, time stops?

What if the future is attracting the past, and pulling us along for the ride?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Bordon81
I've got this filed under Smiler Grogan and the purloined letter but I can't find the video out on the web?

I searched smiler grogan and found this toobworld.blogspot.com... and I still don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

There was a really good "plane" scene in that movie described in Wiki.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the Orange County scene, a Beech model C-18S flies through a highway billboard advertising Coca-Cola. The plane was flown by stuntman Frank Tallman, but a communications mix-up resulted in the use of linen graphic sheets on the sign rather than paper, as planned. Linen is much tougher than paper, and the plane was nearly destroyed on impact. Tallman managed to fly it back to the airstrip, discovering that the leading edges of the wings had been smashed all the way back to the wing spars. Tallman considered that incident the closest he ever came to dying on film. (Both Tallman and his business partner and fellow flier on Mad World, Paul Mantz, would eventually die in separate air crashes over a decade apart.) In the movie the airplane is shown crashing through an airport restaurant's plate glass window and stopping abruptly. Careful viewing will show an arresting cable that was tied to the tail of the airplane at just the right length to make the aircraft stop as it hits a curbing. Part of the Motion Picture & Television Country House and Hospital retirement community, in Woodland Hills, is visible in the background of the scene where characters Lenny Pike and Mrs. Marcus (in the tow truck Pike stole from the service station he destroyed in his rampage) stop at an intersection (of present-day Mulholland Drive, Valley Circle Boulevard, Avenue San Luis, and Calabasas Road) before making a U-turn. Director Kramer died in the hospital of the retirement community in 2001. Although the fictional city of Santa Rosita was really shot in Long Beach, California; Rancho Palos Verdes, California; San Pedro, California; and Santa Monica, California; Santa Rosita's location on a map in the police station scenes was (supposedly) south of San Diego, California, and north along the coast from Mexico, hence Culpepper's attempt to flee there. Since San Diego's southern city limits border Mexico, the southernmost "X" would coincide with somewhere between the eastern part of Imperial Beach, California and the southern part of Chula Vista, California.

Originally posted by pinealexplorer
Is this to say that if the world stops spinning, time stops?

no because aside of the world spinning it is orbiting the sun, which is orbiting the galaxy, which is moving through space......so several things have to happen for the earth to truly stop moving.

Time is nothing more than a label man made to describe the passing of events.

Time is essentially nothing. You cannot add, subtract, slow, or speed up time.

Originally posted by GraffikPleasure
Time is nothing more than a label man made to describe the passing of events.

Time is essentially nothing. You cannot add, subtract, slow, or speed up time.

Exactly, it is an illusion created from the viewers perspective while observing moving objects/changes.

yeah, that speeding up and slowing down stuff even in scientific articles and things... can't buy it.

On a side note, not that this has to do with the topic specifically but something I was thinking about last night and not because I was thinking about stars and rocks and stuff... because I wasn't. I was actually thinking about dreams and spiritual matters. I stumbled across a thought- googled it and not exactly finding anything specific (or maybe not feeling up to par with a sore throat to look very thoroughly) I did find it mentioned here and there in context I'm not too concerned with... but also, it sounds right to me. Perhaps someone else can shed some light if it hasn't already been talked about somewhere else.

Singularity cannot persist.

yay? nay? perhaps for a little while? in some circumstances?

Not really talking about isolated circumstances though... or am I? I don't know. It was just a thought.

reply to post by Xeven

Mass moving through space is what we think of as time. It is a measurement comparison between a designated 'rule' (seconds/meter) and moving objects to that of a stationary point in space/time. I don't think it would be correct to say that motion causes time though. Perhaps we can say that motion/vibration of mass (electrons and subatomic particles) is the cause of the existence of matter and this in turn brings about time as we know it through a comparison of these apparent motions.

It is important to note that motion has many descriptions, e.g. acceleration, velocity, speed, rotation, oscillation...etc. Some of these words are specific in their meaning while others are ambiguous. To say that time slows down the faster you move through space is not accurate. Time dilation is caused by the acceleration of mass, not simply moving faster but during the act of accelerating. It requires a force to accelerate something and this force is equal to the mass times its acceleration. During acceleration there must be a force involved and it is from this force that we get time dilation amongst other effects. There is also inertial mass generated as well as a length contraction according to relativity.

So the slowing down of time (dilation) requires a constant acceleration. For instance we experience a 1G constant acceleration here on Earth due to gravity. It would be extremely difficult to do the same thing in a space ship traveling in a linear direction. A constant acceleration in space with a 1G equivalence would accumulate over time creating an astronomically high velocity. Yet here on Earth we do not accumulate this kind of velocity over time. The comparison between gravity and acceleration is called the Equivalence Principle.

Your question about the speeding up of time in relation to acceleration is something I have also thought about. There is an upper limit to how fast something can accelerate so why not a lower limit as well? The problem is how do you remove accelerations? You apply a force to an object that accelerates it and you then apply another force in an opposing direction (negative acceleration) to this same object to decelerate it yet you are still applying a force. We need to remove energy or force from this object to get the desired results yet how do we do this? Bring it down to absolute zero might do it but this has its own problems.

Another thing to consider is rotational motion which is also an acceleration. All accelerations experience inertial effects, resistance to the force, and the inertial effects in rotation is called centrifugal force. As we rotate around in the Milky Way, oscillate up and down through the galactic plane, bobbing around in stellar clusters, orbiting our Sun and rotating on Earth's axis we are under a huge amount of acceleration. Add all of the mass up in the our galaxy and multiply this by the accelerations and we have a tremendous amount of force.

If these accelerations are the cause of gravity (i.e. resistance or inertia) and time (comparable motions) then the question is where is the force? As it is, the current accepted explanation for the observed rotational motions in the Universe is left over energy from the big bang. I do not agree with this explanation and I think there is something applying a constant force on all mass which in turn causes rotational motions.

MOVEMENT THROUGH SPACE DOES NOT CREATE TIME !

I think everyone so far is attemtpting to make the answer much more complicated than it really is.

The human mind creates time as a means to regulate our time in motion, by that I mean,where we should be at any particular time based on our time here on Earth that which we measure in a 24-hr period, i.e. the Earth being a little larger than 24,000 miles around and spinning approximately 1,000 miles an hour, hence a 24 hr day.

Weeks and months and years are not really relavent. We have selected these terms to describe what day week,month, year for our own convinence. The planet Jupiter is, let's say for the sake of easy math 100 times larger than earth. If you went to the planet Jupiter and stayed there for one Jupiter day, that would equal 100 earth days. In other words,if it took you 100 Earth days to travel to Jupiter that is equal to one Jupiter day.

So now that we know this, the period in between our human movement is called time. Travelling through space will not cause time. We are leaving a known time factor ( Earth time ) and entering an unknown time factor of Space time or the mearsurement and /or spinning of planetaries bodies that all have a different time because they spin or turn at different rates of speed, either faster or slower than Earth.

As we move into space we will most likely use Earth time at least while travelling in out Galaxy. As for time standing still for us while travelling in space or accelerating, I think this is still an unknown as to how it will effect our Human bodies as far as aging or the lack of aging goes. There could be other factors such as radiation and Black Hole tortion exertions ( Gravity) that will add too or subtract from the human factor as far as our real age is concerned. If we leave our Galaxy other point of referrence in space can be used to set Space clocks with a back up of what time it is on our home planet of Earth. If indeed time does stand still when we travel at a certain speed for a given distance then Hybred-Mechanical time keeps may be required to give us the time of day . A space Beacon or a string of beacons can be used to relay laser trasmission in outterspace to send earth time into deep space.
I started think about this many years ago. I work in the Satellite Launch areospace field. I am tasked to ride the Satellite carrier from San Franscisco to Kazackhstan stopping off in Winnipeg can, for fuel, Iceland For fuel, Ireland for fuel and Moscow Russia for fuel before the final leg into the Baikonur Comodrome in Kazackhstan for delivery of the Satellite. It is a 45 hr. Trip. I do not leave the aircraft and there are no port holes to look out and see where I am when we land. I must keep a log of the times I landed in each country. Initially I used the local time for each country but found that that did not translate to any real telling feature of where I was at any of the fueling stops so I switched to what is called Zulu time. This is a time set by Grinwich Village England and remains the same but adding or subtracting time depending or which side of the international date line you are flying in.
I told this story so you can see for yourself that time is only relavent to how we use it as measured on this Earth. Keep thinking it's good for the sole.......................................KMG

Originally posted by tarifa37
reply to post by Xeven

 

Nice idea,find out how fast the universe is expanding then make your object travel that speed but in the opposite direction then the object would be the only body in space that was truly not moving. Kind of like walking the wrong way on a treadmill or travelator to maintain the same position as somebody standing on the ground next to you.

I don't believe it works like that. The Universe itself is expanding, so imagine it being a foam and all matter is carried within that foam. When the foam expands, stuff moves with it but moving in the opposite direction is impossible because the Universe is expanding in all directions. It's quite tricky to put into words, but even the space between our atoms is expanding with the Universe itself...

reply to post by kissmygrits

Weeks and months and years are not really relavent. We have selected these terms to describe what day week,month, year for our own convinence.

Time is not only relevant but it is also relative to not only our perspective but to that of the whole solar system. Our system of measurement of time is based on the movement of the planets in our solar system around our Sun, particularly Earth's motions. More complicated calendars use alignments between Earth and other planets, i.e. Venus and Jupiter as well as alignments with the background stars. Think precession of the equinoxes. Our solar system is like a giant calendar.

Breaking Earth's rotation down into 24 hours is relevant to the size of Earth, as you have so nicely pointed out. Our 12 month year is relevant to Lunar cycles and the motions of Jupiter. Jupiter takes just under 12 years to make one solar orbit so for every opposition it is aligned with a different sign in the zodiac. There are 12 hours on an analog clock and 12 signs in the zodiac and all of these are connected to help us describe time.

The planet Jupiter is, let's say for the sake of easy math 100 times larger than earth. If you went to the planet Jupiter and stayed there for one Jupiter day, that would equal 100 earth days. In other words,if it took you 100 Earth days to travel to Jupiter that is equal to one Jupiter day.

Jupiter's day is just under 10 hours so it would take two and a half rotations to equal one Earth day. But you're correct in that we still use "Earth days" to measure time with. As far as any connection to the size of Jupiter with its rate of rotation...I'll have to think about that one. It is very difficult to get one's head around all of these apparent motions to see the bigger picture.

We are leaving a known time factor ( Earth time ) and entering an unknown time factor of Space time or the mearsurement and /or spinning of planetaries bodies that all have a different time because they spin or turn at different rates of speed, either faster or slower than Earth.

Do planets rotate and spin around their stars at random rates or is there some kind of physical law that they follow similar to Bodes law? It seems that it is quite possible that there is a law here in the rotation and orbit of celestial bodies that we have yet to understand.