So cool @GYOweed! Thanks for posting this. Damn, that’s a content dense article.
I’m far too dense for its deeply dense density. 
There’s no such thing as time. It’s just a reference of where Energy and atoms were. So when you keep going backwards the theory is the big bang but we dont know if it was a big bang It’s just easier for our brains to comprehend.
We are all almost going at the speed of light but in reference to the universe. That’s why we need theory or relativity if we send anything far. We us and the sun are traveling then if i shoot a light proton from the sun to earth it will bend. That’s also how they prove gravity sort of its not just the atoms attracting outside ones back to the center.
I agree. There is only the present moment.
You can try to similate the future sometime with 100% accuracy (basic 2d physics for example).
I was looking up what might AI robot seeds would look like and I find this kind of removed offensive word due to complaints from the lgbtqAI community
I believe there is such thing as time, though it’s certainly poorly defined in the common sense. Nevertheless, time’s arrow can be seen and defined by entropic phenomena.
There are two aspects to relativity: special and general. Special is all about relative speeds, synchronicity, etc; general deals with gravity. The curvature of paths taken by objects under the influence of gravity are merely straight lines superimposed upon a curved space-time.
The simplest definition of time is that which separates events.
I.e. local events under certain circumstances.
According to special relativity, there are clock synchronicity issues which problematize this for observers separated by sufficient distances or relative speeds…
I find the ladder paradox a more interesting consequence of SR than the more often explained twin paradox.
which events thou are truly seperated? that would contradict quantum physics, even just the event of looking at something changes it. And such changes due to cause and effect are fluid, instant, not pixelated and orderly the way we simplify them for our imagination.
_
regarding the twins aging speed effect:
two spaceships fly away from one another at 0,7c,
which would mean they fly at 1,4c relative to one another.
This is not possible and hence the distance they travel and/or the time they need to travel that far, must change.
If its space that changes, the flightpath will be curved,
and we could see the other ship from the side instead of behind (prolly nonsense since light would also curve).
If its time thou, which of the two twin ships, both moving equally fast, is older?
_
and whats up with dat?
distance/time = speed =>
speed x time = distance =>
distance/speed = time
isnt that a weird circlejerk? maybe just my herbally infused tea…
but ya, here u have it,
time is simply distance / speed…
however, we just invented speed to explain movement over a distance over a certain time…
And can You really explain something with itself?
Meanwhile Nanobots are working on mouse tumors.
There are definitely some issues with your analysis. Quantum mechanics is already pixelated in a sense (hence the “quantum”).
Simply looking at something does not change it. Fundamentally we are talking about measuring, not looking. On the quantum level the instrumenta we measure with are on the same scale as the things being measured. It’s like trying to measure the speed of a baseball by putting another baseball in it’s path, of course that would alter the thing you are trying to measure.
In special relativity, there is both time dilation and length contraction (which happen together) and square the apparent paradox of relatively exceeding the speed of light. Space does not become curved, it contracts, compresses. It’s well theorized how these accelerations change the local metric and therefore settle the paradox.
Time is not distance x speed, it’s distance/speed. Interestingly, I believe the fundamental definition of a meter (distance) was reformulated to the distance light in a vacuum travels in a certain amount of time… There used to just be a one meter bar in some building somewhere.
The sun is a great thing that gives us life, energy, food and provides warmth and makes us feel good. I love the sun and I worship it. I just took a picture of it the other day. It is a living breathing godlike being and you can’t tell me otherwise. I see it in the sky and I see the results that it provides to me. My logic is sound and I won’t rely on any other theories or explanations for this god in the sky because I know.
Will you join me for worship services next Sunday? We will all be staring into the sun for 30 minutes and taking in its real energy.
fixed “time = distance / speed” … was typo, thanks
“looking at something”,
“Observing” something is indeed more accurate.
Every method of observation influences the system it happens in and hence the outcome of the observation.
Looking might simply absorb and reflect light that we require to see, but by doing so we influence its path, for example.
Could curvature that happens equally, in all directions, inward, be described as a contraction?
meter was based on a fraction of the earth cirumfence or somin originally, but since the 80s is based on how far light travels over a certain time.
What kind of tithe does it want?
Sol is amazing. Yet, as stars go it’s fairly ordinary.
It doesn’t speak my language. I would not be able to ask this.