posted on Jul, 6 2004 @ 11:20 AM
Isn't time a measurement of the motion of objects/particles/etc, in essence comparing 'old' information to 'new' information?
No. If Earth stopped moving, time would not stop. The time frame changes when speed changes. For example, I am on a different time frame when I walk
than on when I stand still.
Time is not a measurement of motion of objects, because it would be expressed in meters, not in seconds. Furthermore, if time was a measurement of
motion of objects, that would imply a global time frame of reference (absolute time) that it has been proven that it does not exist.
nother thing, if the universe is kind of perceived as a sphere expanding out, how come no matter what direction you look in, if you can look far
enough, you always end up looking back at the middle?
I've never heard this before (that in any way one looks, he always looks in the middle). It is correct though that when you look, you look back,
because light (information) from the far points of the universe is only reaching us now.
The concept of spacetime dilation leads me to the following thought: matter is something like a string with knobs; each knob represents different
states of matter. The distance between two successive knobs represents the timeflow change rythm. The more matter moves faster, the longer the
distance between knobs becomes, thus allowing for matter to 'age' slower, i.e. pass from one state to another with a slower rythm.
The above thought of course implies a fixed time frame, which is proven to not exist. But it may exist in the other dimensions of the universe, which
By the way, I would like to say here that the universe only has two known dimensions: space and time. Our (visible) universe is two-dimensional; the
spatial dimension has 3 components: X, Y and Z. The time dimension only has one.