# Space-Motion not Space-Time

## Recommended Posts

Could the flow of time be an illusion? the question is, do we travel from the present to the future or does the future come to us? either way in which time flows, there is a problem:

the present is always the present, yet we are always travelling from the present to the future. (paradox)

I think the resolution to such a paradox is looking at is as this:

00:01am = Past at 00:02am

00:01am = Present at 00:01am

00:01am = Future at 00:00am

so a single time can be the past, present or future depending on what time it is now, yet now is always now and so how can the relativity between now, the past & future even change in the first place? what causes the flow between past, present & future, what is the true defintion of tick tock?

I believe the answer is time does not exist, only motion exists, that you can speed it up and slow it down relative to other objects, but you cannot travel backwards through time for time does not exist. Motion is not a dimension, just a physical phenomneon produced by space, and that you could conclude there is not 11 dimensions but only 10 and space itself which can be defined as an entity which contains the 10 dimensions produces the phenomneon of motion within, the way in which objects travel through space, and the faster your speed, the slower the motion of the external world, and you cannot travel faster than the speed of light, because there is no time to travel backwards through, so it would be essentialley a paradox. This is why time travel is not possible, because time itself doesn't exist.

Edited by Dean Mullen
##### Share on other sites

I'm going to take what you wrote about time, and write something similar about distance.

For some reason, most people reason about distance differently than they do about time.

Could relative motion be an illusion? the question is, do we travel from "here" to "there", or does "there" come to us? either way in which objects move relative to others, there is a problem:

here is always here, yet we can always be moving from where we are to someplace else. (paradox)

I think the resolution to such a paradox is looking at is as this:

1m = behind 2m

1m = here at 1m

1m = in front of 0m

so a single location can be behind, here, or in front depending on where here is, yet here is always here and so how can...

Alright at that point you lost me a bit but hopefully that's enough to get my point across, where my point is to offer an analogy so you can reconsider your questions using something that is somehow "easier" to conceive.

Note that whether you consider one frame moving relative to another, or vice versa, doesn't matter; each perspective is equally valid. This is the principle of relativity, that there are no privileged frames of reference. Just like distance and relative movement are relative, so is time.

Moving "backwards through time" to me is the same as moving to a negative distance relative to something. No matter which direction you are moving, your distance to everything else is positive, where distance is defined only relative to other locations. Similarly, you can only "move forward" in time, where time is defined only relative to other locations.

I would say that time is real exactly to the same degree that distance is real.

But to discuss this we must leave science behind and move into philosophy (metaphysics, to be specific). It's not just that "science isn't concerned with these questions", as some might argue. It's because to answer your questions, we have to discuss the meaning of the word "real". What we describe as "reality" or "exists" is defined by us, based on existing understandings of space, time, matter, etc. You would have to define and redefine a lot of things, to say a lot of meaningful statements on this topic.

However, we can kind of side-step all that and get to the heart of what you're talking about, which is the idea that "reality isn't quite like our classical understanding of it suggests". This is certainly true. Since most people don't "get" special relativity as an intuitive description of their world, let alone general relativity and quantum mechanics and all that -- and likely no one can explain it all -- you can say that in some ways, reality is an illusion, where illusion is "An erroneous perception of reality," and our perception is certainly not perfect, complete, and error-free.

I agree though with your principle, and personally I believe that there is a possible, yet-unknown sciencey description of the fundamental nature of the universe, in which time (and distance) are nothing but perceptual side-effects. We won't be able to figure it out until we can express it mathematically, and I'm not able to yet. In a year though... maybe 10...

Edited by md65536

## Create an account

Register a new account