Is time a consequence of movement? this thought struck me as i was walking to work yesterday. if the universe was static there would be no need for a fourth coordinate to specify time. although impossible to be static in the quantum realm, theoretically it everything was static would time move foward? and could you tell the difference between the two states?

Good point. I suppose time is only something if you can measure it. And to measure it you need something with moving points (if only at the subatomic level).

good point. another thing that struck me about the movement thing is as we move even very slightly, we are traveling faster through time. the faster you move the faster through time you travel. Would there be a constant speed with which time would move at a minimum?

weird hunch seems to fit into place....

I believe Einstien had a theory simliar to yours except he came to the exact opposite conclusion.

 

I believe he stated that the closer you get to the speed of light the slower time goes. In fact if you surpassed the speed of light (an impossibility in his mind) you would actually go back in time.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

speed is relative yes, but i was saying at zero movement would time cease to move foward or would it carry on as usual?

I should refrase my last point in the previous post. time as seen from an observer appears to slow down for the person traveling.

all very interesting, may i point out a similarity between pythagoras thoerum and time dialation, the two equations are almost identical apart from the conversions from speed and time

the time dialation curve follows a circular path as does y^2 =c^2 - x^2

possbily a stupid idea, but it seems as though (taking a second to mean C meters as units of time) we are travelling at a constant velocity through four dimensional space and time takes up the slack when we are moving slower than C

(i know, sounds pretty stupid)

 

at 0 movement, time is at it's maximum rate. at .5c, time goes at .86 it's usual rate

and at .86c, time goes .5 times it's usual rate

it follows sine-cosine equivalents. (what i've noticed)

 

the only problem with going faster than light is that it requires an infinite amount of energy. my interperetaion of the time dialation graph is that c is the upper limit, there is no place the time axis gives for >c velocity.

Is time a consequence of movement? this thought struck me as i was walking to work yesterday. if the universe was static there would be no need for a fourth coordinate to specify time. although impossible to be static in the quantum realm, theoretically it everything was static would time move foward? and could you tell the difference between the two states?

 

If there was no motion, there would be no definition of time, because our definitions of time, and length, and the like are empirical approximations of what we perceive.

 

Of course, this is somewhat impossible.

If there was no motion' date=' there would be no definition of time, because our definitions of time, and length, and the like are empirical approximations of what we perceive.

 

Of course, this is somewhat impossible.[/quote']

 

what happened to planck time?

time isnt an approximation, there are what can be described as discreet units.

without motion, time still keeps ticking, but to detect the passage of time requires motion.

/wrists

A physics loving buddy of mine explained this to me.

We move through space at a rate of time, time is no more of a consequence of movement than space is.

So, my understanding of it is that our movement is a result of the nature of space and time. We can move only because time allows us to.

So, my understanding of it is that our movement is a result of the nature of space and time. We can move only because time allows us to.

 

that makes sense, without space, there would be no where to move to, motion without time implies v=1/0 which is impossible (under the comfortable assumption that C is the upper limit).