From the equation : speed = distance/time ; or time = distance/speed. Distance, we can see/percept. Speed, also we can see/percept. But for time , we have to see the clock . We can not see time though we have a perception of time.
So tell me which way "time moves" in my house. And please advise me of of any possible adverse effects when I leave my house to go somewhere where time "moves" normally. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The idea which we get from the equation : time = distance/speed is the 'time-interval' of time. This equation does not reveal the whole picture of time . If the distance becomes zero , will time cease to exists ?
So what? What gives us the whole picture of anything? Does that equation give us the "whole picture" of length? Or speed? Does a stationary object still experience the passage of time?
Obviously, time is moving from present to past as we are moving from present to future. Clock only gives us an idea of time but clock is not the source of time . Will the time stop , if the clock stops ? So time is still mysterious.
What makes you think it's "obvious"? It isn't "obvious" at all. Please explain this. No one has claimed that clocks are the "source of time". They are no more the source of time than a tape measure is the source of length.
Wrong question. It doesn't address my question. Unless it's an oblique way of saying "yes". And how would we know if time had ever stopped? We live inside time. If time did stop how could we tell?
We are all in the same earth and moving along with the motion of our earth. As earth spins we are also spinning ; though we are static with respect to earth because relative velocity is zero. But there is a relative velocity with respect to the Sun. So, tomorrow when the Sun rises today will become past(yesterday). So time is moving from future to present and from present to past.
Yes. And your point is? Really? How do you work that out? How do you work out that time "moves"? What do you think time is that it can move?
Consider yourself as an observer. Whatever you are observing is your present observation. After some time has passed , you will make new observation. So as time is passing you are encountering the future. You are meeting the future at the present. So the direction in which we are growing , time is moving in the opposite direction.
I think that hansda is confusing the ways we measure the passage of time, with the passage of time itself.
Consider yourself as a driver. You move along a road making new observations of the road. Does this mean that the road is actually moving? At all? No. And the same with your "observation" that "time is moving".
Ultimately it is becoming relative motion only. So 'passage of time' is relative motion of space only.
You still have to show that "time moves" or actually is something we "move" through. Nope. Time is not space.
