# Thread: How do we interpret time? And what is the speed of time?

1. How do we interpret time? And what is the speed of time?

Ok, one second per second.
But then there's also something called time dilation. That when you launch yourself into space, apparently when you arrive back to earth, you have become a little bit younger then you ought to be. Something that occurs when the speed relative to two bodies changes. Even though it has been observed by extremely precise clocks in experiments, it brings about odd questions and paradoxial circumstances. For example, if speed is relative, and body 1 goes 200.000 km/h compared to body 2, then body 2 also goes 200.000 km/h compared to body 1. So their effects SHOULD be the same to both compared to the other, and cancel eachother out, effectively nothing has happened and both clocks of both body's should still be ticking at the same exact second.

But ok, leaving that behind. Ultimately, when you near the speed of light, this effect becomes bigger and bigger, up to the point that you haven't aged at all when stepping into a speed-of-light vehicle, and arriving at your destination 3 light years away.

So imagine if you will, that you go to a star system three lightyears away, and upon arriving there, you return at the speed of light. That means that on earth, six years have passed, but you havent aged at all. supposedly, because of time dilation, for your sense, you arrived there instantaneously. Because your metabolism slowed as time dilation stretched.

Now, is that of light, The speed at which you travel, depending on the distance you travel, thereby advancing the universe's time by that amount, the speed of time? Is traveling that distance at that speed, the fourth dimension itself in action? Like traveling along the third dimensional axis is going in depth compared to the second dimensional axis. Is traveling at a relative speed compared to everything else, creating time dilation, traveling in depth along the fourth dimensional axis compared to the third dimensional axis?

If so, can you safely assume, that the speed of light, is the speed of time itself? That time advances throughout the universe at the speed of light? And that, since, according to einstein, space and time are the same thing. That the big bang itself, was not the creation of the universe itself. But simply the beginning of time.

That would mean that, space, distance itself, is time. And that traveling over a distance, is traveling through time. Because if time and distance is time. Then traveling through time, one second at a time. Like you are doing right now, is also traveling through space. And that is why nothing sits still in the universe, why there is no middle point sitting still. Because as time proceeds, getting longer and longer since the start. Space itself will stretch and stretch.

So we are all traveling at the speed of light from the big bang. Everything is. And to travel a distance, any distance, to andromeda for example, or another galaxy. Will advance the galaxy by that amount of time by the lightyears you travel. Because you are not only traveling through space, you are also traveling through time.

Ofcourse this shouldn't mean that if you travel 6 lightyears starting today, traveling at 20.000 km/h, you will arrive in six years. Rather, because of the continued time dilation, you can add six years to your travels. And so, when you take into account that andromeda also travels at the speed of light compared to you, when you race there at the speed of light. That because of that relative speed, the time dilation effect get's canceled out. You would still have traveled for six years yourself. Meaning you would have aged. You would have aged six years if that's the case.

So wich is it?
Is einsteins theory of relativity bunk? Or is it not? And how would that work on two bodies traveling at relative speed?

2.

3. Originally Posted by Mr. J Robins
How do we interpret time?
Time is a dimension.

And what is the speed of time?
How fast is length?
Both questions are semantically, and scientifically, meaningless.

Is einsteins theory of relativity bunk? Or is it not?
It's not.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement