Belated Time travel .. ?

[Drum]

~~~ Space, Time & Einstein ~~~

 

 

If we accept General relativity, and its implications of space and time dilation ... then we must also conclusively accept that the past, present and future exist in the Spacetime of this universe at the same moment ...

 

All past, present and future events are here now ... their only measurable difference being human perception of motion ...

 

Now we are told that the 'distortion' of Spacetime is only apparent at speeds approaching light speed or alternatively, at vast distances. But surely we can measure it at any speed or distance ? In other words, any and all movement, must distort Spacetime, however small that movement is ?

 

Now for my 'brainstorming' question.

 

All thats moving in relation to us, cars on the street, trees in the wind, the hair on our head blowing in the wind, the wind itself, our arm as we strike a home run .... must, in some sense be moving slightly into the future, or alternatively, the past. Our body and all around us must only be synchronised when we are 'still' in relation to our selves and our surroundings. ?

 

In other words if we could freeze frame our surroundings so that only the present were visible, then the only parts visible would be the parts that were in the same still state as the observer ? Would our arm swinging the baseball bat be visible, or only return to our view once the home run had been hit, would roads be empty of all traffic ?. (Of course this is impossible, if time was frozen, light would be frozen and we would receive no light at all, atomic structure would collapse)

 

Is it possible that our 'esse' is in some sense not just in the present but in a wider band, bounded by our motion. Are we spread or smeared or 'Bell-curved' across a small amount (or even all) of the past-future with the immediate present being the mythical mid position from which we presume to take our 'base' measurements, where we set up our primitive Astrolabes ?

 

Or are there simply billions of Drums, perish the thought, all acting in near-unison in parrallel universes and our 'esse' is just a condensed persona of them all ... LOL

 

If I'm crazy, where did the craziness set in .... ??

 

cool bananas ... greg :)

[InfiniteNow]

What do you mean by our "esse?"

 

 

 

Cool Bananas

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[Drum]

According to the Wiki .....

 

Esse is a village in Western Finland. It has a population of about 3,000 people, of whom approximately 94% are Swedish-speaking Finns and the rest are Finnish-speaking Swedes.

 

LOL ... But I don't mean that!

 

'Esse quam videri' is a Latin phrase meaning "To be, rather than to seem".

 

In crossword puzzles it is taken to mean the 'essence', the very being.

 

I meant it as the minimal amount needed to maintain our ID or ego. If we were unfortunate enough to lose an arm, a leg, an eye etc ... we would still be us. Esse would be the minimal amount required for us to maintain our identity.

 

cool bananas ... greg

[Little Bang]

If I take a still of you and it only captures the parts of you that are still with respect to me it would be blank because none of you would be still with respect to me. The same would be true of my moving arm.

[snoopy]

~~~ Space, Time & Einstein ~~~

 

 

 

 

If we accept General relativity, and its implications of space and time dilation ... then we must also conclusively accept that the past, present and future exist in the Spacetime of this universe at the same moment ...

 

All past, present and future events are here now ... their only measurable difference being human perception of motion ...

 

Now we are told that the 'distortion' of Spacetime is only apparent at speeds approaching light speed or alternatively, at vast distances. But surely we can measure it at any speed or distance ? In other words, any and all movement, must distort Spacetime, however small that movement is ?

 

Now for my 'brainstorming' question.

 

All thats moving in relation to us, cars on the street, trees in the wind, the hair on our head blowing in the wind, the wind itself, our arm as we strike a home run .... must, in some sense be moving slightly into the future, or alternatively, the past. Our body and all around us must only be synchronised when we are 'still' in relation to our selves and our surroundings. ?

 

In other words if we could freeze frame our surroundings so that only the present were visible, then the only parts visible would be the parts that were in the same still state as the observer ? Would our arm swinging the baseball bat be visible, or only return to our view once the home run had been hit, would roads be empty of all traffic ?. (Of course this is impossible, if time was frozen, light would be frozen and we would receive no light at all, atomic structure would collapse)

 

Is it possible that our 'esse' is in some sense not just in the present but in a wider band, bounded by our motion. Are we spread or smeared or 'Bell-curved' across a small amount (or even all) of the past-future with the immediate present being the mythical mid position from which we presume to take our 'base' measurements, where we set up our primitive Astrolabes ?

 

Or are there simply billions of Drums, perish the thought, all acting in near-unison in parrallel universes and our 'esse' is just a condensed persona of them all ... LOL

 

If I'm crazy, where did the craziness set in .... ??

 

cool bananas ... greg :evil:

 

 

Time dilation is given by the equation

 

[math]\Delta t= \frac{\Delta t_o}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/math]

 

so you see it only matters when v is arbitrarily large because c is such a large number if time froze you would see everything that was there if you could somehow be outside the universe to see it and be like "God", nothing would disappear.

 

As for the question about your soul being smeared across the past present and future well first of all its a big assumption to say you have a soul but lets for argument sake say you have then yes your soul would be present in all future and past events and of course the present.

 

But then I think this is quite a good argument against you having a soul or essence.

 

But then thats just me.

 

Peace

:)

[freeztar]

~~~ Space, Time & Einstein ~~~

If we accept General relativity, and its implications of space and time dilation ... then we must also conclusively accept that the past, present and future exist in the Spacetime of this universe at the same moment ...

 

All past, present and future events are here now ... their only measurable difference being human perception of motion ...

 

Why motion?

 

Now we are told that the 'distortion' of Spacetime is only apparent at speeds approaching light speed or alternatively, at vast distances. But surely we can measure it at any speed or distance ? In other words, any and all movement, must distort Spacetime, however small that movement is ?

Indeed.

Now for my 'brainstorming' question.

 

All thats moving in relation to us, cars on the street, trees in the wind, the hair on our head blowing in the wind, the wind itself, our arm as we strike a home run .... must, in some sense be moving slightly into the future, or alternatively, the past. Our body and all around us must only be synchronised when we are 'still' in relation to our selves and our surroundings. ?

Define 'still'.

Can your body ever be still in relation to everything else?

 

In other words if we could freeze frame our surroundings so that only the present were visible, then the only parts visible would be the parts that were in the same still state as the observer ? Would our arm swinging the baseball bat be visible, or only return to our view once the home run had been hit, would roads be empty of all traffic ?. (Of course this is impossible, if time was frozen, light would be frozen and we would receive no light at all, atomic structure would collapse)

That paragraph deserves a :thumbs_up

Stopping time is an interesting thought experiment that leads one to a confounding infinity. I love thinking about this stuff! :)

 

Nonetheless, thinking of time as being "stoppable" is presumptuous.

 

Nothing is more timeless than being still :phones:

 

 

Is it possible that our 'esse' is in some sense not just in the present but in a wider band, bounded by our motion. Are we spread or smeared or 'Bell-curved' across a small amount (or even all) of the past-future with the immediate present being the mythical mid position from which we presume to take our 'base' measurements, where we set up our primitive Astrolabes ?

 

Perhaps, but "mythical midpoint" kinda throws me off track. And what is motion again?

 

Or are there simply billions of Drums, perish the thought, all acting in near-unison in parrallel universes and our 'esse' is just a condensed persona of them all ... LOL

 

If I'm crazy, where did the craziness set in .... ??

 

cool bananas ... greg :evil:

 

LOL......

:rolleyes:

[Drum]

Why motion?

Motion creates change. Change is our only measure of time.

Indeed.

Is this 'for' or 'against' ? Snoopy's reply.

Define 'still'.

Can your body ever be still in relation to everything else?

No. This was meant as a 'What if' or brainstorming.

Perhaps, but "mythical midpoint" kinda throws me off track. And what is motion again?

Motion creates change. Change is our only measure of time. again :eek:

 

I don't believe we have a soul. Just change Esse to Observer if it helps.

 

 

cool bananas ... Drum

[Tormod]

Motion creates change. Change is our only measure of time.

 

Okay, this is not the philosophy forum. Hard science, please. Exactly how does motion create change, and how is this change used to measure time?

 

It's not like x seconds = y change, is it...so what is it?

 

Motion creates change. Change is our only measure of time.

 

Again. How do we measure change?

[CraigD]

If we accept General relativity

…

Now we are told that the 'distortion' of Spacetime is only apparent at speeds approaching light speed or alternatively, at vast distances.

This list is significantly incomplete and inaccurate.

 

Relativity also predicts that such “distortion” is apparent near very massive objects, such as planets, stars, and in the extreme, black holes. Although many theories of cosmology predict similar effects due to great distance, Relativity itself does not.

But surely we can measure it at any speed or distance ? In other words, any and all movement, must distort Spacetime, however small that movement is ?

Correct, and predicted precisely by Relativity, as summarized by Snoopy in post #5.

All thats moving in relation to us, cars on the street, trees in the wind, the hair on our head blowing in the wind, the wind itself, our arm as we strike a home run .... must, in some sense be moving slightly into the future, or alternatively, the past.

In formalisms with timelike dimensions, such as 3 spacelike +1 timelike dimensional Minkowski space in which Relativity is often described, the concept of motion is effectively replaced by that of extent (“length”) in a timelike dimension. In such formalisms, objects don’t “move” along a timelike dimension like a point-body moves through a spacelike dimension in a formalism such as classical mechanics. Rather, they extend along it, like a body with volume has a measurable length, width, and depth extends along the usual three spacelike dimensions.

Our body and all around us must only be synchronised when we are 'still' in relation to our selves and our surroundings. ? In other words if we could freeze frame our surroundings so that only the present were visible, then the only parts visible would be the parts that were in the same still state as the observer ? Would our arm swinging the baseball bat be visible, or only return to our view once the home run had been hit, would roads be empty of all traffic ?.

No to all three, as best I understand the questions, and physics.

 

It’s fairly easy, in either formal classical mechanical terms, or in practical ones, to “freeze” our surroundings for an arbitrary “present instant”. In classical mechanics, we simply discard (or ignore) all motion information about the system, rendering it motionless. In practical terms, a device such as a camera, provided its shutter speed is sufficiently high and its resolution sufficiently low, can perform the same operation, not only “freezing time”, but removing certain knowledge of motion. For example, a high-speed photo of an airborne baseball doesn’t reveal its speed or direction – we could only guess at it from, say, additional parts of the image, such as the position of the body of a person who has just thrown the ball.

 

In neither the classical mechanical nor the practical terms above, are objects with non-zero in any way prohibited from interacting with one another – though our formal or photographic manipulations may have destroyed the subjective knowledge necessary for us to calculate how they will or have interacted.

 

With Relativity added to the formalism of classical mechanics, concepts such as “present instant” become less easy to define and intuitively understand, but continue to be meaningful. Also, in a peculiar way, makes discarding velocity information more difficult, in a way analogous to how we were able to guess the direction of a thrown baseball in a high-speed photo by the position of its pitcher. With assumptions such as the known rest mass or (spatial) dimensions of a body, relativistic dilation can tell us the velocity of a body from a “frozen snapshot” of data describing it relative to the inertial frame required to define such data. For example, if our baseball was very, very precisely spherical, and of known radius (say, .115 m), nearly absolutely rigid, and we minutely measured it’s frozen image to discover exactly 2 points on its surface are precisely .1149999999999989778… m from its geometric center, we could conclude that it was moving at a relative speed of 40 m/s (an excellent fastball) in the direction defined by a line drawn through the 2 points.! :confused:

Is it possible that our 'esse' is in some sense not just in the present but in a wider band, bounded by our motion.

In the formalism of physics, or of any objective scientific scheme with which I’m familiar, no, or more precisely, the question is not meaningful.

 

In these formalism, there simply isn’t an objectively real entity corresponding to the term “esse”, “soul”, “awareness”, “consciousness”, “identity”, etc. This attribute must be defined as a “higher order” characteristic of more fundamental physically measurable bodies, which are in principle defined just like the much simpler baseball, pitcher, etc. in our previous examples. For example, if we could measure all of the physical data of a human body, or arguably just a major part of the brain, we in principle would know their complete “esse”.

Are we spread or smeared or 'Bell-curved' across a small amount (or even all) of the past-future with the immediate present being the mythical mid position…

I fear in this question an unhealthy combination of (relativistic or non-relativistic) classical physical formalism with the formalism of quantum mechanics. While the interpretation of quantum mechanics as providing a “smeared” probability distribution of a particle being within a given volume of space during a given interval of time is accurate and conventional, it’s not, I think, the same as the “wider band of our esse” Drum describes in post #1. Although some correlation of the two is possible – and has been done in several complicated and highly speculative works of which I’m aware – such efforts are deep and perilous: In short, many of the people who have made them are famously smart and well-trained, yet their efforts still vague, informal, and unconvincing to their peers, little more than hopeful guesses of what future, smarter, clearer, more formal, and more convincing theorists may someday achieve.

Or are there simply billions of Drums, perish the thought, all acting in near-unison in parrallel universes and our 'esse' is just a condensed persona of them all ... LOL

This appears to be a reference to the or some variation of the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics. As above, the theoretical formalism appears to me to answer “no – the question’s not meaningful”.

 

In this case, the possibility of relating “esse” to the many parallel worldlines of these interpretations is even more problematical, as such interpretations usually require complete lack of interaction between parallel worldlines. Again, some intriguing speculations of correspondence between the two concepts has been proposed, but appears far too underdeveloped to be considered science.

[EWright]

~~~ Space, Time & Einstein ~~~

 

 

If we accept General relativity, and its implications of space and time dilation ... then we must also conclusively accept that the past, present and future exist in the Spacetime of this universe at the same moment ...

 

 

Inncorect, the very use of the word "moment," by definition, separates it from its past and future moments.

 

All past, present and future events are here now ... their only measurable difference being human perception of motion ...

 

The human perception of motion is the constant perception of the future becoming the past.

 

 

Now we are told that the 'distortion' of Spacetime is only apparent at speeds approaching light speed or alternatively, at vast distances. But surely we can measure it at any speed or distance ? In other words, any and all movement, must distort Spacetime, however small that movement is ?

 

Don't forget strong gravitational forces.

 

 

Now for my 'brainstorming' question.

 

All thats moving in relation to us, cars on the street, trees in the wind, the hair on our head blowing in the wind, the wind itself, our arm as we strike a home run .... must, in some sense be moving slightly into the future, or alternatively, the past. Our body and all around us must only be synchronised when we are 'still' in relation to our selves and our surroundings. ?

 

No. In a basic sense, all that is moving locally to us in the absense of very high speeds or extreme gravity is moving through time at the same rate -- or rather, the rate that time arrives. The motion may vary in speed around us, but it does not produce a measurable variance in our day to day relation to time.

 

In other words if we could freeze frame our surroundings so that only the present were visible, then the only parts visible would be the parts that were in the same still state as the observer ? Would our arm swinging the baseball bat be visible, or only return to our view once the home run had been hit, would roads be empty of all traffic ?. (Of course this is impossible, if time was frozen, light would be frozen and we would receive no light at all, atomic structure would collapse)

 

No. If time and light were frozen you would simply see the image registered in your brain at that moment from the light image captured in that moment. Nothing would cease to exist due to a variance in motions and timeframes. If you were to be litteral enough about it, then you would perceive nothing because your perception would also be frozen in time. If you allowed reflected light and your perception (and even your eyes) to move during this time, it would appear like a frozen scene from Matrix.

 

 

Is it possible that our 'esse' is in some sense not just in the present but in a wider band, bounded by our motion. Are we spread or smeared or 'Bell-curved' across a small amount (or even all) of the past-future with the immediate present being the mythical mid position from which we presume to take our 'base' measurements, where we set up our primitive Astrolabes ?

 

Just think of the present as a "point" between the future and past. All things must pass through this point continually and simultaneously, locally to us. Things get more complicated at speeds approaching c.

 

Or are there simply billions of Drums, perish the thought, all acting in near-unison in parrallel universes and our 'esse' is just a condensed persona of them all ... LOL

 

If I'm crazy, where did the craziness set in .... ??

 

cool bananas ... greg :confused:

 

Click on my signature below for more information related to this topic on a grander scale.

[Little Bang]

Von Kerr and I can't remember or find the title but he said "Reality is the result of complex negotiations between the observer and the observed." This is a very simple explanation of relativity but it's one I think you should take note of Drum.

[Drum]

Far out .... I didn't realise that this would be taken so seriously. I will try to answer all replies.

 

Exactly how does motion create change, and how is this change used to measure time? It's not like x seconds = y change, is it...so what is it?

Again. How do we measure change?

 

I don't know how you perceive it, but time is a measure of change. I don't know any other way to describe it. Think about it ... no change ... nothing to measure ??

 

This list is significantly incomplete and inaccurate.The WIKI ..... also predicts that such “distortion” is apparent near very massive objects, such as planets, stars, and in the extreme,

 

Can we just accept gravity as acceleration, and therefore motion, for this thread ?

 

Although many theories of cosmology predict similar effects due to great distance, Relativity itself does not.

 

I don't know that I agree with this ... but let it ride ..

 

We don't have a SOUL .... forget the ESSE .. There is no way to freeze motion, this was a 'what if' scenario.

 

I fear in this question an unhealthy combination of (relativistic or non-relativistic) classical physical formalism with the formalism of quantum mechanics. While the interpretation of quantum mechanics as providing a “smeared” probability distribution of a particle being within a given volume of space during a given interval of time is accurate and conventional, it’s not, I think, the same as the “wider band of our esse” Drum describes in post #1. Although some correlation of the two is possible – and has been done in several complicated and highly speculative works of which I’m aware – such efforts are deep and perilous:

 

Far out .... hold it. It is all referring to GR. The only QM reference is the last line relating to Parrallel Universes. This was a joke.

 

Lets make this simpler, one step at a time.

 

Do (Does) you (anyone here) accept the consequences of Time Dilation as described by Einstein ??? If you accept Time Dilation as occurring then it follows you also accept that two different Date/Times are in existence at any given point of reconciliation.

 

Paul R. Heyl .... For example, suppose that we, with our instruments for measuring space and time, are located on a platform, which we believe to be stationary. We cannot be altogether certain of this, for there is no visible object in the universe save another similar platform carrying an observer likewise equipped: but when we observe relative motion between our platform and the other it pleases our intuition to suppose our platform at rest and to ascribe all the motion to the other.

 

Einstein asserts that if this relative velocity were great enough we might notice some strange happenings on the other platform. True, a rather high velocity would be necessary, something comparable with the speed of light, say 100,000 thousand miles a second; and it is tacitly assumed that we would be able to get a glimpse of the moving system as it flashed by. Granting this, what would we see?

 

Einstein asserts that if there were a circle painted on the moving platform it would appear to us as an ellipse with its short diameter in the direction of its motion. The amount of this shortening would depend on the speed with which the system is moving, being quite imperceptible at ordinary speeds. in the limit, as the speed approached that of light, the circle would flatten completely into a straight line - its diameter perpendicular to the direction of motion.

 

Of this shortening, says Einstein, the moving observer will be unconscious, for not only is the circle flattened in the direction of motion, but the platform itself and all it carries (including the observer) share in this shortening. Even the observer's measuring rod is not exempt. Laid along the diameter of the circle which is perpendicular to the line of motion it would indicate, say, ten centimetres; placed along the shortened diameter, the rod, being itself now shortened in the same ration, would apparently indicate the same length as before, (ten centimetres) and the moving observer would have no suspicion of what we might be seeing. in fact, he might with equal right suppose himself stationary and lay all the motion to the account of our platform. And if we had a circle painted on our floor it would appear flattened to him, though not to us.

 

Again, the clock on the observer's platform would exhibit to us, though not to him, an equally eccentric behaviour. Suppose that other platform stooped long enough for a comparison (synchronisation) of clocks, and then backing off to get a start, flashed by us at high speed. As it passed we would see that the other clock was apparently slow as compared with ours, but of this the moving observer would be unconscious.

 

But could he not observe our clock?

 

Certainly, just as easily as we could see his.

 

And would he not see that our clock was now faster than his? "No," says Einstein. "on the contrary, he would take it to be slower"

 

Here is a paradox indeed ! A's clock appears slow to B while at the same time B's clock appears slow to A ! Which is right?

 

To this question Einstein answers indifferently: "Either. It all depends on the point of view."

 

In asserting that the rate of the moving clock is altered by its motion Einstein has not in mind anything so materialistic as the motion interfering with the proper functioning of the pendulum or the balance wheel. it is something deeper and more abtruse than that. He means that the flow of time itself is changed by the motion of the system, and that the clock is but fulfilling its natural function in keeping pace with the altered rate of time.

 

Publication approved by the Director of the Bureau of Standards of the U.S Department of Commerce.

 

I am just examining a Forest while you guys are asking for, and providing, the scientific genus of each individual tree .....:shrug:

 

cool bananas ... Drum

[LaurieAG]

Do (Does) you (anyone here) accept the consequences of Time Dilation as described by Einstein ??? If you accept Time Dilation as occurring then it follows you also accept that two different Date/Times are in existence at any given point of reconciliation.

 

Hi Drum,

 

Time goes on both ways forever,

despite all mortal human endeavour,

infinity will be reached, never ever.

 

I keep my (mortal) feet firmly on the ground.

[snoopy]

Do (Does) you (anyone here) accept the consequences of Time Dilation as described by Einstein ??? If you accept Time Dilation as occurring then it follows you also accept that two different Date/Times are in existence at any given point of reconciliation.

 

 

 

 

cool bananas ... Drum

 

Yes I accept the consequences of time dilation and reality is stranger than you imagine,

 

I have given you the equation for time dilation in a previous post but motion does not create time its the other way around time creates motion.

 

It would be mathematically impossible to create a physics of anything without time.

 

Time is not a measure of change its more fundamental than that.

 

You can examine the forest all you like but unless you get your hands dirty and look at every tree you wont understand what it is, you will just think it looks pretty.

 

Peace

:shrug:

[Drum]

Yes I accept the consequences of time dilation and reality is stranger than you imagine, I have given you the equation for time dilation in a previous post but motion does not create time its the other way around time creates motion.

It would be mathematically impossible to create a physics of anything without time.

Time is not a measure of change its more fundamental than that.

Well Snoopy .... before you shoot the Red Baron down in a hail of gunfire ... :shrug:

 

Do you accept that Time Dis-location occurs ??

 

A major drawback in exploiting the effect of time dilation to achieve manned interstellar flight is that those who make the journey age less than those, including friends and family members, who remain behind. For very long journeys at high fractions of the speed of light, the time dislocation may be so great that many generations, and even millennia, may pass on the home planet before the interstellar travelers return. For example, an excursion from Earth to Rigel, 900 light-years away, and back, at (a constant) 99.99% of light-speed, would take 1,800 years as measured on Earth but only about 28 years as experienced by those on the spacecraft. It had been argued, for example by Sebastien von Hoerner, that such acute time dislocations – effectively hurling the travelers into the future – will prevent interstellar travel beyond a few tens of light-years and, therefore, the colonization of the Galaxy. However, there may be other ways to circumvent the light barrier.

 

time dislocation

 

 

If you accept Time Dislocation, and that a traveller is 'hurled' into the future while his loved ones remain in the present ..... isn't it feasible, even necessary to draw the conclusion that both parties exist in the same moment of reconcilation ... regardless of their watches.

 

The past, present and future are not what we think, but in some form, are always here ??

 

However strange reality is compared to my imagination ... shouldn't I be given a reasonable hearing on this point ???

 

Also Snoop ... Matter in motion is the prime mover and cause of all. Time is only a measurement, not an entity ... it can't be used to create anything ..... but lets not get off track ... we can fight this one out in another sky. Thank you for the formula, sorry I failed to acknowledge it. The point of your posting of the formula was to point out, so I read it, that small distances and speeds are negligible. This is true but ... they are measurable.

 

cool bananas ... Drum ... :)

[snoopy]

Well Snoopy .... before you shoot the Red Baron down in a hail of gunfire ... :shrug:

 

Do you accept that Time Dis-location occurs ??

 

 

 

If you accept Time Dislocation, and that a traveller is 'hurled' into the future while his loved ones remain in the present ..... isn't it feasible, even necessary to draw the conclusion that both parties exist in the same moment of reconcilation ... regardless of their watches.

 

:)

 

 

Yes, your not understanding what really happens here no one is being hurled into the future.

 

The 'traveller' experiences less time while the loved ones experience more time.

 

We say that this experience is relative.

Both experiences are the correct experiences no one is being left in the past or hurled into the future its just their experience of time is different.

 

The traveller does not slow down or travel into the future from his point of view time has gone on in the same way it normally does.

 

The past, present and future does exist together in one spactime block.

 

So if as you say that this does occur how can Time be motion ??

 

Time is a not only an entity its a fundamental one.

[Drum]

Your not understanding what really happens here no one is being hurled into the future.

 

I do understand Snoop ... really

 

The 'traveller' experiences less time while the loved ones experience more time. We say that this experience is relative.

Both experiences are the correct experiences no one is being left in the past or hurled into the future its just their experience of time is different.

 

The traveller does not slow down or travel into the future from his point of view time has gone on in the same way it normally does. The past, present and future does exist together in one spactime block.

 

I also agree with everything you say here ... To me, Spacetime is the reality. Space and Time are Newtonian concepts.

 

So if as you say that this does occur how can Time be motion ??

Time is a not only an entity its a fundamental one.

 

I don't say Time is motion. I'm saying that Time is only a measurement. A measurement of motion. A measurement of change. But you see, already we are dogfighting in a different sky .... :shrug:

 

I think that 'in the beginning' there had to be a fundamental substance. I think of it as Matter. Matter in motion can be measured as Energy. We have no satisfactory definition of Matter yet, nor Mass.

 

cool bananas ... Drum :)