If there is no energy, does time exist?

paddoboy said:
I havn't yet mentioned the most ideal and likely situation of the interchangeability of space and time. That is inside BH's. This gives a description, highly mathematical but supportive of this seemingly bizarre concept of the interchangebility of space and time.
Click to expand...
Another link gives a more simplified explanation of the possible interchangebility of space and time.....
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10743.html
What is the relationship between space and time?
Mathematically, and in accordance with relativity, they are in some sense interchangeable, but we do know that they form co-equal parts of a larger 'thing' called space-time, and it is only within space-time that the most complete understanding of the motion and properties of natural objects and phenomena can be rigorously understood by physicists. Space and time are to space-time what arms and legs are to humans. In some sense they are interchangeable, but you cannot understand 10,000 years of human history without including both arms and legs as part of the basic human condition.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-7-26_13-50-45.png
    upload_2019-7-26_13-50-45.png
    256 bytes · Views: 3
  • upload_2019-7-26_13-50-45.png
    upload_2019-7-26_13-50-45.png
    257 bytes · Views: 1
  • upload_2019-7-26_13-50-45.png
    upload_2019-7-26_13-50-45.png
    240 bytes · Views: 1
  • upload_2019-7-26_13-50-45.png
    upload_2019-7-26_13-50-45.png
    215 bytes · Views: 1
TheFrogger said:
Your imagined "world" is based upon this world. Two cannot exist at the same moment.

Time is a form of space. To "have time" means you haven't died yet. However it also means that you must die at some moment in the future. We are dying, and must be for TIME to exist. :)
Click to expand...
So even when we consider a hypothetical, reality persists!

Thats amazing I never would have considered!
 
Space and time indeed understand the motion of objects .

But to the objects time is meaningless .

Time has no efficacy on any physical object .
 
Beaconator said:
But my imagination exists in reality. Should we stop imagining hypotheticals just to keep from making more puzzles?

Most theories start with something imagined and gain traction from evidence found that fits the narrative.

So imagination is the beginning of puzzles not the end.
Click to expand...

taking what you say and what you mean, we may have many hypothetical explanations about the universe we inhabit, but they are just that, hypotheticals...some with some basis, others with no basis, and they remain hypotheticals until reasonable observational and/or experimental data is turned up supporting that hypothetical....which then becomes a scientific theory. While theories start with imagination, some knowledge is also required.
The problem with forums such as this, is the screwballs that come on and claim to have overthrown this aspect of science, or that aspect of science, and claim that with utmost certainty. Which I suppose is all one can expect on forums that are open to any Joe Blow, that feels like telling unsupported fairy tales.

A learned and educated imagination is a great asset to science, which is what Einstein meant when he said "Imagination is more important then knowledge''
 
Last edited:
paddoboy said:
taking what you say and what you mean, we may have many hypothetical explanations about the universe we inhabit, but they are just that, hypotheticals...some with some basis, others with no basis, and they remain hypotheticals until reasonable observational and/or experimental data is turned up supporting that hypothetical....which then becomes a scientific theory. While theories start with imagination, some knowledge is also required.
The problem with forums such as this, is the screwballs that come on and claim to have overthrown this aspect of science, or that aspect of science, and claim that with utmost certainty. Which I suppose is all one can expect on forums that are open to any Joe Blow, that feels like telling unsupported fairy tales.

A learned and educated imagination is a great asset to science, which is what Einstein meant when he said "Imagination is more important then knowledge''
Click to expand...

Einstein was wrong! Some Greek guy proved it by driving a car! I understand the double slit better than you! Who puts radioactive cats in a box! The Earth is flat! Time dilation is impossible!

meme.jpg
 
Beaconator said:
Einstein was wrong! Some Greek guy proved it by driving a car! I understand the double slit better than you! Who puts radioactive cats in a box! The Earth is flat! Time dilation is impossible!
Click to expand...
I prefer the evidence as detailed in post 141 and previous, sorry. :rolleyes:
 
river said:
How can time exist with no energy ?

This suggests that time is not based on the physical .
Click to expand...
Its much more simple. No energy is an impossibility, therefore anything that follows can be as simple or convoluted as possible. Or it can pertain to the reality in which we live.

No energy is impossible therefore time still exists.

Its that simple.

On the other hand.

If a space absent of energy could be found it would be the only piece of evidence that would prove to me the underlying premise of the big bang was in fact true. Without that I can't believe that the universe ever had a numerical beginning.

I have the same problem with "heat death" and the absence of an absolute zero, although the term itself is misleading.

Some form of energy with a temperature has to be measured in order for us to consider it cold. You can't measure the temperature of something that doesn't exist, but if you could it would be considered absolute zero.
 
Beaconator said:
Its much more simple. No energy is an impossibility, therefore anything that follows can be as simple or convoluted as possible. Or it can pertain to the reality in which we live.

No energy is impossible therefore time still exists.

Its that simple.

On the other hand.

If a space absent of energy could be found it would be the only piece of evidence that would prove to me the underlying premise of the big bang was in fact true. Without that I can't believe that the universe ever had a numerical beginning.

I have the same problem with "heat death" and the absence of an absolute zero, although the term itself is misleading.

Some form of energy with a temperature has to be measured in order for us to consider it cold. You can't measure the temperature of something that doesn't exist, but if you could it would be considered absolute zero.
Click to expand...

Or that it exists but as of yet nobody can measure it . Nor detect it .

Anyway BB is about extreme heat not anything to do with cold .
 
Time is not a form of energy of any sort .

Time has no efficacy on any physical form . Time can't change , in and of its self , any physical form ; from the micro to the macro , both in no particular order , macro to the micro .....
 
river said: ↑
Or that it exists but as of yet nobody can measure it . Nor detect it .

Anyway BB is about extreme heat not anything to do with cold .
Click to expand...

Beaconator said:
You should tell them its kind of hard to have one without the other.
Click to expand...

Agreed

It's impossible .

All forms of energy , to both extremes of temp. Have always existed , together .

BB is spark which dwindles down to the absence of energy . Therefore time as well .

The Universe never dwindles down to the absence of energy .
 
Last edited:
Beaconator said:
You should tell them its kind of hard to have one without the other.
Click to expand...
I see this thread has been peppered with river's usual rhetorical nonsense. He has already been banned from the science sections of the forum for such nonsense. It appears fools never learn.

Another link gives a more simplified explanation of the possible interchangebility of space and time.....
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10743.html
What is the relationship between space and time?
Mathematically, and in accordance with relativity, they are in some sense interchangeable, but we do know that they form co-equal parts of a larger 'thing' called space-time, and it is only within space-time that the most complete understanding of the motion and properties of natural objects and phenomena can be rigorously understood by physicists. Space and time are to space-time what arms and legs are to humans. In some sense they are interchangeable, but you cannot understand 10,000 years of human history without including both arms and legs as part of the basic human condition.
 
from, https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_spacetime.html

Another corollary of Special Relativity is is that, in effect, one person’s interval of space is another person’s interval of both time and space, and one person’s interval of time is also another person’s interval of both space and time. Thus, space and time are effectively interchangeable, and fundamentally the same thing (or at least two different sides of the same coin), an effect which becomes much more noticeable at relativistic speeds approaching the speed of light.

Einstein's former mathematics professor, Hermann Minkowski, was perhaps the first to note this effect (and perhaps understood it even better than Einstein himself), and it was he who coined the phrase “space-time” to describe the interchangeability of the four dimensions. In 1908, Minkowski offered a useful analogy to help explain how four-dimensionalspace-time can appear differently to two observers in our normal three-dimensional space. He described two observers viewing a three-dimensional object from different angles, and noting that, for example, the length and width can appear different from the different viewpoints, due to what we call perspective, even though the object is clearly one and the same in three dimensions.

The idea perhaps becomes even clearer when we consider that our picture of the Moon is actually what the Moon was like 1¼ seconds ago (the time light takes to reach the Earth from the Moon), our picture of the Sun is actually how it looked 8½ minutes ago, and by the time we see an image of Alpha Centauri, our nearest star system, it is already 4.3 years out of date. We can therefore never know what the universe is like at this very instant, and the universe is clearly not a thing that extends just in space, but in space-time

Due to the relativistic effects of previous section can be considered an example of this: whereas the stay-at-home twin’s progress through space-time was wholly through time, the traveling twin’s progress was partly through space, so that his progress through time was less than that of the stay-at-home twin (so that he aged less).

Therefore, as Einstein remarked, “For us physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent”, and these concepts really do not figure at all in Einstein’s justifiably famous formula, E = mc2, which we will look at in the next section.
 
paddoboy said:
Therefore, as Einstein remarked, “For us physicists, the distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent”, and these concepts really do not figure at all in Einstein’s justifiably famous formula, E = mc2, which we will look at in the next section.
Click to expand...

For me the following

distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion

looks suspiciously like NOW

:)
 
...which is fleeting. The future is happening now. The moment a decision is made (willed into action) the action occurs in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top