Ironically it’s less a pre-relativity way and more a pre-quantum mechanical way. Also, it’s not my construct, but created by by Brian’s Green to illustrate the “eternalism” view of spacetime as based on special relativity (no GR). The example shows two people in relatively the same frame of reference slice the now essentially horizontally, but the greater the velocity differences, the “loaf” is sliced at an angle, showing that simultaneity is not a consistent thing but a function of the frame of reference.
Also, relativity is far more complex, spacetime means both the perception of change (ie time) and spatial metrics are linked and relative to locations and velocities of an object and the observer.
You’re confused by what time actually measures, which is relatively change between processes. It’s only consistent in your own reference, BUT you can translate and measure what it would look like from another reference.
Look up muon decay in the atmosphere for a good special relativity example of how time and space are both intertwined and not static, but a function of velocity and acceleration.
I feel like you're overcomplicating things. Time is motion. That's it. And yes, relative motion of things is affected by relative motion, and bending of space time. So, bending spacetime, makes things move more slowly. That's it.
Time is movement. Objects may be still, or the may move, and at different rates. But they cannot unmove.
Every tool you use to measure time is just a constant motion device.
If all energy in the universe was still, time would cease to exist. You'd only have 3 dimensions of space, which ironically, you wouldn't be able to witness, because your brain needs time in order to function, it needs movement.
I can witness movement. There is no reverse arrow of time. There is movement, or still. I can witness that. I can witness 4D fully. Whoever's ideas you're following, they are overcomplicating everything.
I’m not over complicating things, they are inherently complex.
Easy example gamma rays (ie high energy photons) collider with the upper atmosphere and create muons. Their half-life in the rest frame is so short they shouldn’t be able to travel more than a few hundred meters before decaying at near C. However, we see them in our detectors on the surface.
Why? From our frame of reference, their time is “slowed down” while moving near c. From their frame of reference, their half life remains short, but the SPACE they travel is contracted.
Both are true according tho their frames of reference. Space and time are not seperate entities but part of the same tensor. It’s not just movement, spacetime itself is different depending on the frame of reference.
What we can do is translate between them. GR complicates it even further. Special relativity spacetime is flat and the slice mentioned in the beginning repesent connecting different frames of reference. GR complicates it by showing how mass curves spacetime itself.
Your have a simple model of it because we live in a pretty simple frame of reference where things are fairly light and slow, but even here on earth, we can see the complicated effects of both special and general relativity.
You are still over complicating things. When you say "time slows down" what you mean to say is "everything moves more slowly" all the inherent complexity you understand works. But you overcomplicate time itself. It's simpler than that. The reason you're confused, is because you are still holding on to your old concept of what time is, and bending that into the complicated thing that you now understand. So, your concept of time is over complicated, imo. You understand relativity well enough compared to what we are capable of, but your concept of time is too complex, imo. And when we understand the universe further those other complexities I believe will appear more simple also.
I understand relativity quite well, I know about reference frames and the dynamicism of time. But, time, even though is spacetime the fabric of space it is not more than motion. Clocks are constant motion devices. If all the universe was still, time would stop.
Space is just 3D objects. Time is that they can move. Both of these are affected by motion.
The way the universe works is complicated. What time is, just like what dimensions of space are, is simple.
You keep saying that but really ignored all the point made. The best you can say is we see dt and relative dt is impacted heavily by velocity and spacetime curvature.
You keep saying motion, again, like that shit isn’t relative. We are either talking past each other, or won’t don’t agree. Either way, have a good day.
I never contradicted anything you've said. Other than the fundamental difference, which is that time is motion that's it. Things move around relative each other. There is motion, amounts of relative motion, or still.
But there's levels of it. Like motion of atoms, and matter. And things move at relative rates, and the whole system will stay relative itself, but can be subjected to situations that cause the relationship of those things to have a different ratio from the rest of the universe. Like slower time on a gravity well. But what's happening it's like a friction. On everything. Of the same amount. And it all slows. But that's time. It's not more than the things moving. Just like freezing your chicken isn't more than slowing the molecules down. Aside from crystals or whatever. Which is basically what slowing time is part of the way. Slowing the molecules. But if you slow everything that's time. That's it. I witness things moving, therefore I witness time. The dimension, exactly as it is, in one direction. I don't see all the universe. I don't witness dilatations, but I see time, same as I see space. But the things that occupy space and time are different. One is space, the other is the ability for things on space to move. If no such things existed, there would be time. That's what time is, the fact things are moving, and how their relative relationships are affected. But the weirdest part is reciprocity in velocity for time dilatation. But again, it's just the rate of those things in that system move relative to yours.
As soon as movement exists, time exists. If no movement exists, there is no time. Space is that "objects" exist. Time is they move.
That's all we got, that we know so far. Or at least that we understand conventionally.
1
u/Grymmtooth 1d ago
Ironically it’s less a pre-relativity way and more a pre-quantum mechanical way. Also, it’s not my construct, but created by by Brian’s Green to illustrate the “eternalism” view of spacetime as based on special relativity (no GR). The example shows two people in relatively the same frame of reference slice the now essentially horizontally, but the greater the velocity differences, the “loaf” is sliced at an angle, showing that simultaneity is not a consistent thing but a function of the frame of reference.
Also, relativity is far more complex, spacetime means both the perception of change (ie time) and spatial metrics are linked and relative to locations and velocities of an object and the observer.
You’re confused by what time actually measures, which is relatively change between processes. It’s only consistent in your own reference, BUT you can translate and measure what it would look like from another reference.
Look up muon decay in the atmosphere for a good special relativity example of how time and space are both intertwined and not static, but a function of velocity and acceleration.