So?
Are you going to imply that change of position of a mass as in the case you described above is due to the effect of time? It is not so. It is due to the property of inertia of a mass as per Newton's First Law of Motion.
Does time exist?
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
- Status
Are you going to imply that change of position of a mass as in the case you described above is due to the effect of time? It is not so. It is due to the property of inertia of a mass as per Newton's First Law of Motion.
There is a galaxy far, far away that is moving away from hansda at 5,000 km/second. A princess in that galaxy will understand that for every 1 second she advances forward in the time dimension our galaxy recedes by 5,000 km in the space (x,y,z) dimension. Meanwhile hansda observes that his computer isn't moving relative to him and concludes it is 'stationary'. Hansda concludes that if there is no change in x,y,z relative to him in 1 second then the velocity ([change in distance]/[change in time]) is 0/1 which is zero. If the velocity is zero does it follow that the change in time (one second) is also zero? If 0/1=0 does 1=0? If hansda's computer is stationary relative to him does time stop for the princess in the far, far away galaxy?
Here the velocity which you considered is relative velocity wrt Hansda. That is zero, correct.
Which velocity you are considering here? The same relative velocity wrt Hansda? Even if the relative velocity is zero, the clock will tick.
0/1 = 0 ; correct. It does not mean 1=0 .
Time is equal in both the cases. Though the clock will tick differently in these two cases.
No.
I noticed you twice mentioned (quotes below, my bold) a force or energy is needed to make a change. Hence my post #520 change without force.
---------------
My bold below.
A mass or particle has to exists in the first place, then you can talk of changes happening to that mass/particle.
Change, movement or inertia can be associated with a mass or particle which already exists. i.e. Try associating those things with a non-existing mass.
I think the same goes for the particle's field, it has to exist first, to be in interactions with other fields.
Exist~ duration~ time.
Obviously in any of the above, I'm not saying anything about what time is.
Last edited:
This is as per the law of inertia. See http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/inertia , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia .
YES. A mass or particle exists.
YES.
Why do you want to do physics with a non-existing mass. Are you trying for some thought experiment?
If a particle exists, its field will also exist and it will interact with other field.
Total mass and energy of our universe is constant. This is true for any instant of time.
Hansda, If someone read these next two quotes of you, they may be led to thinking you need force to make a change. I pointed out (post #520)no force was needed to change position.
My bold.
My bold
My bold.
~~~
My bold
Remembering your ''only force can make a change'' (from second quote above) so, using all three quotes we get...because there is no force present we get no changes, and because there are no changes to ''reference''...does that mean there is no time, given that you say '' Time is just a reference''?
Last edited:
Jumping in I would agree.
But with a proviso.
Everything must be absolutely stationery ie not under pressure existing movement.
You are right. For change of position of a mass no force is required. This happens due to the property of inertia of a mass. Time has no role in change of position of a mass.
I mean to say that TIME does not interact with a mass. Had time interacted with mass, we would have felt time because our body is made of all atomic particles which have mass. Do we feel time?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The word "change" encompasses the passage of time. The word has no meaning without it.
A particle at position xyz changing to position x1y1z1 must involve the passage of time.
If it did not involve the passage of time, you would instead be referring to a particle at position xyz and a (different) particle at position x1y1z1. Which is a completely different animal.
Last edited:
Thats true, passage of time will change position of a mass in the time axis. Passage of time will not change position in the x,y,z axes.
YES. So?
Even if the particle do not change position from xyz to x1y1z1, passage of time will happen through the particle remaining at rest at xyz.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You missed the point.
For change to occur, time must pass.
Thus directly refuting this assertion:
I think you have missed my clarification in post#530.
Time is always passing. Past, Present, Future is always there.
I am sure you have missed my clarification in the post #530. Thats why you quoted my previous post's(#528) statement again.
Wrong
TO the particle , change is about why the change , inotherwords what force provided the movement towards change .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
One cannot even use the word change (which you did, three times) without invoking the passage of time in the scenario.
You're also had to use another word that invoke passage of time: movement.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You didn't clarify; you provided a red herring.
Your assertion is that time has no role in change. Yet you have been unable to show any example of change that does not invoke the passage of time.
Thus, time plays a role in allowing change to occur.
No time means no change.
Invoke , dave . Sure change " invokes " time but thats all that change does .
How does/can time " invoke " change ?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I am not saying the act of change invokes the phenomena of time.
hansda has produced several examples of changes, all of which have had to invoke the concept of time into them for the examples to make any sense.
No one has yet to show an example of a change that does not include within it the implicit passage of time.
There's a reason for that.
The particle exists, even if it moves or not. What does ''exist'' suggest to you?
Manifest
- Status