Matter, Eternity, Time

[s0cratus]

Matter, Eternity, Time
=.
Can time exist without matter?
According to Newton the answer is “ Yes”
According to Einstein the answer is “ No”
Who is right, who is wrong?
#
Newton declared that time is absolute and wrote that time
“ flows equably without relation to anything external”.
Einstein had another opinion.
According to SRT / GRT time is relative and depends on the mass and speed
It means that different moving mass-bodies can create different time.
It also means that space and time is only a result of some physical process
of moving mass / moving particles. The cause for time and space to be able
to appear is moving mass (moving particles).
============= …
a)
There are different *gravity time*.
The *gravity time* depends on mass / matter and its movement.
For example, every planet has its own *time* (gravity time)
b)
There is Minkowski negative -4D timespace (without Newtonian matter).
Minkowski -4D is *timeless* - zero vacuum continuum: T=0K.
T=0K is an eternal continuum, an absolute reference frame.
c)
In different local parts of *eternal vacuum * T=0K is possible to see
planets with their own *time*. For us the *Earth time* is absolute,
but from vacuum's point of view (Einsteinium) *Earth time* is relative.
============..

 

[s0cratus]

d)
If quantum of light travels at constant speed c=1 its time *is frozen*.
(timeless particle)
The *time* appears when quantum of light changes its speed c=1.
This is not *gravity time* it is another kind of *time*.
The process when quantum of light keeps its changeable condition
is called *personal time* of quantum of light .
The *personal time* of quantum of light is explained by SRT.
============…

 

[s0cratus]

A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles
Authors: Andreas Albrecht, Joao Magueijo
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811018

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

So basically, this?

(Hopefully the big bang is disproved before I die. It makes no sense whatsoever, imho.)

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Yes this is actually more plausible to view time as having no beginning.

Anyway, an event such as the big bang still might have occured and might occur, this part of bang is more favourable than believing that time did not exist before symmetry was broken.

 

[sushi]

isn't time just motion and work?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

What is work if not motion?
What is motion for you?

Motion would mean change in time, then again time cannot be a perceivable change in time.

 

[sushi]

What is work if not motion?
What is motion for you?

Motion would mean change in time, then again time cannot be a perceivable change in time.

work is only energy is used, it does not pertain motion.
objects lose energy to external enviroment, that is a inevitable law of thermodynamics.
motion is different, it is change in displacement or position in space.

 

[The Void]

I follow the newtonian and platonian time concept where time is a container through his change take place or more like a potential which enables the possibility of change.

Change is not time but a characteristic of time, something that is possible because of time.

Why I came to this?

Imagine universe is a clock.
The battery turned dead.
The clock stopped. There is no motion.

Is time gone?

How can it? Only the clock's battery is down. Time is still there.

Time is independant of change and motion. But change and motion is dependant on time.

Imagine everything in this world stopped. No motion.

People falling stopped in mid-air. No time. All stopped. But is it?

Let's say only the earth is stopped.

A clock outside earth measures how long it remains stopped.

After 100 million years change and motion again started in earth. The people in earth didnt even realized anything, because their awareness was still too. No motion.

But 100 million years passed by without motion or change but wait time was stoped wasnt it? Time was there. Time is always there as a potential.

Change and motion, shows time in action, it is used to measure time, but time cant really be measured, it is something else.

 

[sushi]

I follow the newtonian and platonian time concept where time is a container through his change take place or more like a potential which enables the possibility of change.

Change is not time but a characteristic of time, something that is possible because of time.

Why I came to this?

Imagine universe is a clock.
The battery turned dead.
The clock stopped. There is no motion.

Is time gone?

How can it? Only the clock's battery is down. Time is still there.

Time is independant of change and motion. But change and motion is dependant on time.

Imagine everything in this world stopped. No motion.

People falling stopped in mid-air. No time. All stopped. But is it?

Let's say only the earth is stopped.

A clock outside earth measures how long it remains stopped.

After 100 million years change and motion again started in earth. The people in earth didnt even realized anything, because their awareness was still too. No motion.

But 100 million years passed by without motion or change but wait time was stoped wasnt it? Time was there. Time is always there as a potential.

Change and motion, shows time in action, it is used to measure time, but time cant really be measured, it is something else.

well if your brain stops along with it then time technically stops. time is still going because your brain is stil working and hence "sense" it. All motion and work in the universe stops or freezes then time is technically "dead".

Alright I don't know, the truth probably lies in the singularity inside the event horizon of a black hole, but no object survives there.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

work is only energy is used, it does not pertain motion.
objects lose energy to external enviroment, that is a inevitable law of thermodynamics.
motion is different, it is change in displacement or position in space.

Did you see motion without expending energy? I want to be in that wonderland too.

Work is a measure of energy displaced between frames of reference.
There is a constant motion between atoms and charges in electrostatic devices and other feasible forces.

Give me an example of work done without any motion, or motion without any work done

 

[sushi]

Did you see motion without expending energy? I want to be in that wonderland too.

Work is a measure of energy displaced between frames of reference.
There is a constant motion between atoms and charges in electrostatic devices and other feasible forces.

Give me an example of work done without any motion, or motion without any work done

flow of energy or energy used is work, no distance change. you can lose energy to something without any motion.

the condition mortion may requires work, but the condition of work does not require motion. Just like you push a rock and it does not move, you still worked or transfer energy, but no motion happened. work is a prequiste of motion, but work itself is not motion. ( man I am not going to explain any further). You can say change in energy state is work, but energy change does not necessary pertain motion. the transfer of energy does not neccesary involve motion.

also newton said what is in motion continues to be motion in a vaccum if there is no force or resistance against it), so motion does not continully expend or exhaust energy. So no work is necessary is required to keep moving it, once it is moving. This is an example where motion does not require constant energy expediture. There can be motion with no energy loss in the matteer. ( i am not sure of the second point, but the point i want to make is mainly the in the first). Or we can assume the matter is almost massless, or very small mass, hence very little energy is required to move it or cause motion.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

flow of energy or energy used is work, no distance change. you can lose energy to something without any motion.

the condition mortion may requires work, but the condition of work does not require motion. Just like you push a rock and it does not move, you still worked or transfer energy, but no motion happened. work is a prequiste of motion, but work itself is not motion. ( man I am not going to explain any further). You can say any energy change in a matter is work, but energy change does not necessary pertain motion.

also newton said what is in motion continues to be motion in a vaccum if there is no force or resistance against it), so motion does not continully expend or exhaust energy. So no work is necessary is required to keep moving it, once it is moving. This is an example where motion does not require constant energy expediture. There can be motion with no energy loss in the matteer. ( i am not sure of the second point, but the point i want to make is mainly the in the first). Or we can assume the matter is almost massless, or very small mass, hence very little energy is required to move it or cause motion.

If we are into newton. If you used energy to move something and it doesn't stop it means there is no energy for it to stop.

edit: Also there is no pure vacum, or there is no place in the universe where external forces would not act on this body, it couldn't move eternally.

If you move your rock, there is a force and there is equal and opposite force to this rock and because of this it doesn't move. But there is a constant motion and exchange of heat energy in this rock, atoms of this rock move and bounce together. Also by pushing the rock in ground you exert energy on the ground and you increase the pressure increasing the motion and heat of atoms that make up the soil.

The motion occurs but it is not apparent and visible.

I would like you to think about time again:

I will define time as I think it can be described, because that was the point we both seemed trying to reach.

Time would be any single change. If there is no change there is no time.

If we would have two objects and they would not change in relation to themselves then we could say that no time has passed in this relation.

 

[The Void]

well if your brain stops along with it then time technically stops. time is still going because your brain is stil working and hence "sense" it. All motion and work in the universe stops or freezes then time is technically "dead".

Alright I don't know, the truth probably lies in the singularity inside the event horizon of a black hole, but no object survives there.

As long as you are aware you can sense time even if there is no change.
But just because your brain stops\ or more specifically awareness ceases that doesn't mean time is gone.

Who is to say that time cannot exist independant of our awareness?
If I kill myself wil;l time stop?
Time will only stop relative to 'me' but that is because there will be no 'me' (though according to psychology and neuroscience there was never a 'me' to begin with but that is some other story) after death of awareness.

Not only time if brain activity stops this computer, this internet all will stop existing, if I use your logic.

Time cant have a beginning.
It is because it existed always as a container like something or potential,
transition is possible.

Einstien's time is about transition and change more of the Liebnitz's type of time, I guess.

Time exists independant of awareness.

When we say time feels slow and stuff we talk about change and stuff, but time is beyond that.

 

[The Void]

If we are into newton. If you used energy to move something and it doesn't stop it means there is no energy for it to stop.

edit: Also there is no pure vacum, or there is no place in the universe where external forces would not act on this body, it couldn't move eternally.

If you move your rock, there is a force and there is equal and opposite force to this rock and because of this it doesn't move. But there is a constant motion and exchange of heat energy in this rock, atoms of this rock move and bounce together. Also by pushing the rock in ground you exert energy on the ground and you increase the pressure increasing the motion and heat of atoms that make up the soil.

The motion occurs but it is not apparent and visible.

I would like you to think about time again:

I will define time as I think it can be described, because that was the point we both seemed trying to reach.

Time would be any single change. If there is no change there is no time.

If we would have two objects and they would not change in relation to themselves then we could say that no time has passed in this relation.

That is the Liebnitz's version of time.
I disagree with it.

I agreed at this once upon a time.

But we can still live a changeless scenario and still have time.

Imagine you are in a room with no change. you are perceiving no change.
You are not even percieving your thoughts. After a long time you started thinking.
But wait I said 'long' which implies time, but there was no change?

Then I concluded time depends on awareness. Because as long as you are aware you sense time.

But then something clicked in me. It is true for everything.

Like this keyboard, as long as I am aware I can sense this keyboard.

So it does not implies that the keyboard do not exist independant of time.


There is also a philosophy.

Imagine there are two worlds.

In one world (lets say A) change stopped. And when change stopped the world glowed red.

The other world (let us say B) started a stop clock.

After 300 years change started happening again in A and stopped glowing.

In B they stoped the clock. And found out for 300 years the world A had no change and timeless.

But wait wait wait, if it was without time and change then how can it be changeless for '300 years' measured in world B?

It can only be possible if time is something else idependant of change.

it is not the mathematical time, it is not something that can be measured, it is a potential, a potential that allows change to exist.

We use the property of time (change) to take a standard measurement of relative change which is the time in physics and formulas.
That is a different time, it is what we use in measurements.

But something else exists which is independant of change and any other thing.

The real unbounded time. And no one is beyond it.

 

[The Void]

Motion and change cannot exist without matter.
When such characteristics that are possible due to time are not happening because of the lack of condutions needed for the potential (time) to be expressed (in form of change),

the physical time used in measurement will not exist.

 

[Hawkeye]

Motion and change cannot exist without matter.
When such characteristics that are possible due to time are not happening because of the lack of condutions needed for the potential (time) to be expressed (in form of change),

the physical time used in measurement will not exist.

Ironically, the same is true for maximum matter as the more matter you have, the slower time goes.

 

[s0cratus]

In order to understand the quantum physics is needed
to reconsider the old well-known abstract conceptions like:
Inertia, entropy, ideal gas, black body , . . . . . etc
Take for example 'inertia' – movement without force.
There isn't a *free lunch* for movement.
For movement is needed to pay by energy.
Your car wouldn't move one inch without energy.
. . . . . . . etc
==.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

That is the Liebnitz's version of time.
Imagine you are in a room with no change. you are perceiving no change.
You are not even percieving your thoughts. After a long time you started thinking.
But wait I said 'long' which implies time, but there was no change?

If there is no change in any particle that this room consists of including you then time doesn not flow, because any single moment is no different from the other.

You wouldn't start thinking spontaneously. Something happened and therefore you think. You wouldn't start thinking without your bodily functions active and changing.

Then I concluded time depends on awareness. Because as long as you are aware you sense time.

Funnily enough, your awarness is just a change in yourself and your causal reaction on stimuli and sensory information that you intake while your neural system transfers energy and changes your brain configurations.

If there was no change in your brain then your awarnes would be 0. To continue your awarness you are constantly supplied with the same or similar signals from your brain that build your awarness.

There is also a philosophy.

Imagine there are two worlds.

In one world (lets say A) change stopped. And when change stopped the world glowed red.

The other world (let us say B) started a stop clock.

After 300 years change started happening again in A and stopped glowing.

In B they stoped the clock. And found out for 300 years the world A had no change and timeless.

But wait wait wait, if it was without time and change then how can it be changeless for '300 years' measured in world B?

It can only be possible if time is something else idependant of change.

That is what I am getting at, that time did not exist in the world A for 300 years, however it did exist in a much larger universe that was changing including the change and observation of the stowatch.

If there was no change in the entire all-encompassing universe then the time would not exist.

it is not the mathematical time, it is not something that can be measured, it is a potential, a potential that allows change to exist.

We use the property of time (change) to take a standard measurement of relative change which is the time in physics and formulas.
That is a different time, it is what we use in measurements.

But something else exists which is independant of change and any other thing.

The real unbounded time. And no one is beyond it.

Well I still didn't get a reliable example of how time could exist and be perceived without change.
There are infitissemaly small values of time, such as planck time, we can argue that any smaller amount would not exist as there would be no process that would bring a change in such a small time.

 

[The Void]

If there is no change in any particle that this room consists of including you then time doesn not flow, because any single moment is no different from the other.

You wouldn't start thinking spontaneously. Something happened and therefore you think. You wouldn't start thinking without your bodily functions active and changing.


Funnily enough, your awarness is just a change in yourself and your causal reaction on stimuli and sensory information that you intake while your neural system transfers energy and changes your brain configurations.

If there was no change in your brain then your awarnes would be 0. To continue your awarness you are constantly supplied with the same or similar signals from your brain that build your awarness.



That is what I am getting at, that time did not exist in the world A for 300 years, however it did exist in a much larger universe that was changing including the change and observation of the stowatch.

If there was no change in the entire all-encompassing universe then the time would not exist.

Well I still didn't get a reliable example of how time could exist and be perceived without change.
There are infitissemaly small values of time, such as planck time, we can argue that any smaller amount would not exist as there would be no process that would bring a change in such a small time.

No no, time cannot be perceived without change.
I said, that change is what shows time in action.
Without change time cannot be percieved. But just because something cannot be percieved does not means it does not exist.

the problem is in defining time.
If you define time as change it is ok, but something which is kind of nothing exists independant of change that is 'potential for change'.

Now if you will name it time or you will just name change as time, it is your change.

But why am I bringing this concept of potential for change?

What I am trying to get at it is this.

Imagine time stopped for a while and then returned.
(here time implies change)

Change(time) stopped everywhere and then returned again after a while.


but wait how can it return after a while when teh very word 'a while' implies passage of time but how does that happened if there was no time? That means time(change) never stopped in the first place.

But it is not really difficult to magine a scenatrio where change stops then return after a while.

"if time stops for 1 million years then how did time even stopped?"

I was confused and thatb is when I tweaked the definition of time.

I define time as potential for change.

Change is the only thing that can prove the existence of time (the potential for change).

But even if there is no change the potential exists and it is ever existing.

Even illusion of change is a change. Change exists, and it is an absolute certainty, even if chaneg is just shifting of consciousness in a constant universe , the shifting also implies change. even if it is all an illusion, the illusion, is changing, even for the illusion for change to exist real change have to exist, and if there is change,
there is always an everexisting potential for change, i.e time.

 

[The Void]

Yes I agree if there was never any change time probably dont exist, because no change was ever shown thus the existence of a potential for change becomes doubtful.

But even if a single change ever takes place it means a potential for change had been existing , and always had been without beginning and end.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Spoiler

No no, time cannot be perceived without change.
I said, that change is what shows time in action.
Without change time cannot be percieved. But just because something cannot be percieved does not means it does not exist.

the problem is in defining time.
If you define time as change it is ok, but something which is kind of nothing exists independant of change that is 'potential for change'.

Now if you will name it time or you will just name change as time, it is your change.

But why am I bringing this concept of potential for change?

What I am trying to get at it is this.

Imagine time stopped for a while and then returned.
(here time implies change)

Change(time) stopped everywhere and then returned again after a while.

but wait how can it return after a while when teh very word 'a while' implies passage of time but how does that happened if there was no time? That means time(change) never stopped in the first place.

But it is not really difficult to magine a scenatrio where change stops then return after a while.

"if time stops for 1 million years then how did time even stopped?"

I was confused and thatb is when I tweaked the definition of time.

I define time as potential for change.

Change is the only thing that can prove the existence of time (the potential for change).

But even if there is no change the potential exists and it is ever existing.

Even illusion of change is a change. Change exists, and it is an absolute certainty, even if chaneg is just shifting of consciousness in a constant universe , the shifting also implies change. even if it is all an illusion, the illusion, is changing, even for the illusion for change to exist real change have to exist, and if there is change,
there is always an everexisting potential for change, i.e time.

You define time as something that either is continuous and indivisible, or something that is divisible and ticks away in a relatively small steps.

If there is a universe with one proton, and this proton does not change any of its information and doesn't decay, then in the universe of this proton time does not exist. There is no potential for change if there is no causal reaction leading to this potential.

Without change there is no potential for change. Change builds up and leads to other changes.

Time didn't stop for 1 million years, if it did then you would have to be outside the universe, which is impossible and you would have to experience this 1 million year long passage of time that in the end brought no change to the observed universe.

Well it is possible if you agree that time does exist as a whole and can be divided to any degree you want. Change then would be a series of events that happens on the 4th dimensional axis T and is a continuous flow of matter/energy in the 4 dimensional universe

If the universe was suddenly to break apart and increase its entropy to the maximum so that there is no more possible change to happen then defining time would not matter. There would be no time that would be relevant to describe lack of change and lack of potential for change that will never occur again.

I think that what you are describing here is a determinism/indeterminism duality and in relation to this we can define time differently.

 

[The Void]

You define time as something that either is continuous and indivisible, or something that is divisible and ticks away in a relatively small steps.

If there is a universe with one proton, and this proton does not change any of its information and doesn't decay, then in the universe of this proton time does not exist. There is no potential for change if there is no causal reaction leading to this potential.

Without change there is no potential for change. Change builds up and leads to other changes.

Time didn't stop for 1 million years, if it did then you would have to be outside the universe, which is impossible and you would have to experience this 1 million year long passage of time that in the end brought no change to the observed universe.

Well it is possible if you agree that time does exist as a whole and can be divided to any degree you want. Change then would be a series of events that happens on the 4th dimensional axis T and is a continuous flow of matter/energy in the 4 dimensional universe

If the universe was suddenly to break apart and increase its entropy to the maximum so that there is no more possible change to happen then defining time would not matter. There would be no time that would be relevant to describe lack of change and lack of potential for change that will never occur again.

I think that what you are describing here is a determinism/indeterminism duality and in relation to this we can define time differently.

Yes without change there is no potential for change.

But if change stops then come back, then in the moment between in which there was no change, there was the potential of change and only because it existed that is why change again came back.

Well, well wait, ................If change stops, change cannot come back, because if come backs change did not ever stop.

but that also means universe had never been without time, and that is why change had been able to occur.

But can time ever stop?

Change can stop for eternity perhaps.... but potential of change still have the potential to exist without expressing itself in teh form of change forever.

Well it your choice if you name that event as timeless or not.
It depends on what you define as what.

 

[The Void]

well, I dont know, I will stop.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Yes without change there is no potential for change.

But if change stops then come back, then in the moment between in which there was no change, there was the potential of change and only because it existed that is why change again came back.

Well, well wait, ................If change stops, change cannot come back, because if come backs change did not ever stop.

but that also means universe had never been without time, and that is why change had been able to occur.

But can time ever stop?

Change can stop for eternity perhaps.... but potential of change still have the potential to exist without expressing itself in teh form of change forever.

Well it your choice if you name that event as timeless or not.
It depends on what you define as what.

If there is an even A that leads to the event B, then this change A that makes up this event already contains the potential for change B to occur.

Are there some potential changes that could exist without preceding changes?

If we were to delve into quantum level, then there is a lot of information about spontaneous appearance and disappearance, however there is a basic rule of 0 sum. As much as I don't know this area there seems to be an agreement that for every particle that appears for a certain time there will be a coparticle that will also coexist for balance.

I don't know quantum physics, I also don't know how well defined and how applicaple and explored this area is. I think that research is on a stage that cannot solve its own mysteries right now. If you happen to have resources of information that connect classical physics, relativity and quantum then I would be glad to look through and confirm what is uncertain.

I think that our definition was not even divergent, we were just naming different things in a different way and looking at different systems of reference.

For me the ultimate system of reference is the largest possible omniverse, and this omniverse interacts with our perception for our need of describing it to occur. I don't know how to define time disconnecting it from perception and entropy, again potential for change is implied in every change except for the last change if there ever will be any last change to occur.

If you think you can add something to this, then please do. However your post shows that we may have exhausted the range of reliable information to compare.

 

[The Void]

Yes I can agree with that. I dont know much about quatum mechanics though.
May be no one really correctly know.
I dont know. I dont have much more to say.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I dont know much about quatum mechanics though.

Me either. So...

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–DeWitt_equation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_constraint_of_LQG

 

[Vrecknidj]

When I read those pages, though, I feel like Faraday must have when Maxwell sent him papers on the mathematics of electricity and magnetism. I'm sure that the language that I see there is meaningful, but I would really like a translation into simple English. (Then again, from what math I do know, I know that the request for such a translation is often a request that cannot be fulfilled.)

 

[s0cratus]

Newton's time is gravity –earth- planet time.
Newton's space is gravity- planet space.
Einstein's space / time is Minkowski - 4D spacetime continuum
Newton's inertia (moving without any forces) is an abstract idea.
Einstein's inertia (moving depends on E=Mc^2) is still unsolved phenomena.
#
Boson – impulse h ( is a pure corpuscular)
Fermion – impulse h*=h/2pi ( is a wave - dualism effect)
Quantum particle can use sometime h, sometime h*=h/2pi.
#
Problems:
a) to find the reference frame for quantum particles
b) to find place for Minkowski negative 4D in Nature
c) to explain how E=Mc^2 can be basis for creating everything in Nature.
==….
Only physics can tell us the logical truth about reality.
=.

 

[gilliatt]

Time is a type of relationship, one has a certain relationship to the motion, say the earth around the sun. One go around the sun three revolutions, I am 3 years old. What if I went around the sun every 3000 years? No one would live to be a year old? So number of years is a relative term, depending on your own situation, your position in the universe/space. Finding a standard of measurement is almost never an exact science, there is really no straight lines, everything is sort of curved, oblong etc.

 

[s0cratus]

So number of years is a relative term, depending
on your own situation, your position in the universe/space..

Gravity time is a relative conception.

Finding a standard of measurement is almost never an exact science,.

Correct.
Every reference frame has its own space and time and ' a standard of measurement'.

there is really no straight lines, everything is sort of curved, oblong etc.

The Universe as whole is an infinite flat continuum.
==..

 

[Hawkeye]

The Universe as whole is an infinite flat continuum.
==..

Firstly, it's impossible to prove any real thing is infinite.

Secondly, recent studies suggest that the Universe may very well be curved.

 

[sushi]

When everything pauses , there is no time.

things don't pause because of gravity, and work, and energy.

 

[s0cratus]

When everything pauses , there is no time.

things don't pause because of gravity, and work, and energy.

Pause is a potential condition.
According to physics the work, energy . . .etc has potential abilities.
====

 

[BigApplePi]

Great thread. Great thoughts. Here I will try to simplify***.

I see the concept of time as confusing. Time is really our perception of motion. (Some used the word, "change.") If you think motion, that is why some particle physicists can talk about time going backward. Then again, motion is relative. We are comparing one object to another to another. How can we perceive motion unless we are outside what we are observing? That is so, uh ... human.

To have motion one must have something moved. That we can call matter. Potential? That's just a kind of energy. We would still want to relate matter to something called this "energy*", but perhaps not in this thread.

As for "time" standing still, why not? ... but locally. If the entire universe were still, unmoving, unchanging, that would be the same as no time. For all we know that happens and we can't notice it as long as we are a part of it**. We can assume local non-movement ... as when we stand on the Earth and seem to stand stiil. We ARE standing still relative to the tree next to us, but not relative to the Earth spinning around the Sun.

Hawkeye said something about massive objects slowing time (paraphrase). Not sure how that works. Massive objects curve space I understand ... but if time is just motion, then two small objects near a massive object would ... ?

*e = mc²
** Some god in another universe could observe our Universe as stopped or slow and we would never know it; another god as extremely fast.
***Maybe I should have said, "Fail to simplify."

 

[Grayman]

Pause is a potential condition.
According to physics the work, energy . . .etc has potential abilities.
====

As BAP seemed to be indicating..?

Such a thing would seem to exist in a singularity of mass. Also known as a black hole. As energy approaches zero movement will near stop at the molecular level and without relative movement and change there is no time. Such a thing is eternally approached but never arrived. Potential of this form does not exist but is simply necessary for the approching line to be defined.

It is interesting to think that as everything slows at an atomic level, the brain itself would process slower in relation to people on earth. The indivual having a slower mind and body would percieve people on earth as moving extremely fast.

In reality, time cannot stop.
BAP's perspective on God as an observer was rather interesting.

 

[s0cratus]

Time is really our perception of motion. (Some used the word, "change.")
.

There are two (2) kinds of motions:
Newtonian - d/t=v (relative speed) and
Constant speed of light quantum - d/t= c = 186000 miles per sec =1.

If you think motion, that is why some particle physicists can talk
about time going backward. .

Some particle physicists talk about speed more than
c = 186000 miles per sec =1.

Then again, motion is relative. .

Motion (even the motion of quantum of light) is relative.

To have motion one must have something moved. That can call matter. Potential? That's just a kind of energy. We would still want to relate matter
to something called this "energy*", but perhaps not in this thread..

Quantum of light is a pure mass/energy particle : E=Mc^2.

As for "time" standing still, why not? ... but locally. .

Time is a local conception.

If the entire universe were still, unmoving, unchanging,
that would be the same as no time.

T=0K ( as a whole universe) is infinite and eternal.
( Minkowski 4D negative spacetime, Dirac's vacuum holes-sea )
But in a local places of infinite spacetime there are gravity changes.

===

 

[BigApplePi]

But in a local places of infinite spacetime there are gravity changes.

What does this mean? Expand meaning?

 

[s0cratus]

What does this mean? Expand meaning?

But in a local places of infinite spacetime ( T=0K)
there are gravity changes ( it is possible to see stars and planets ).
In a local place these stars and planets was created according to
'Entropy phenomena' when T=0K was raised to the star's temperature.
=.

 

[s0cratus]

A man decided.
One circle of Earth around the Sun is a year.
A year is 12 months.
A month is 30 days'
A day is 24 hours.
A hour is 60 minutes.
. . . . etc
For us this Earth's time is an absolute fact.
But every planet has its own year, own time.
For example: Martian year and time has another measuring.
A year on Mars lasts twice as long as Earth's year.
Here we are talking about *gravity time*.
So, if somebody want to know *what time is* then he needs
to understand *how were the planets created?*,
*where did matter come from?*
(the famous big bang doesn't give the answer to this question)
#
And what is about the space between planets /stars /galaxies?
This is space of infinite/ eternal *cold kingdom* T=0K with
*negative virtual particles* -E=Mc^2.
Somehow (through vacuum transformation/ fluctuation/ polarization,
quantum tunneling phenomena ) these *negative virtual particles*
become real particles E=h*f.
These particles (E=h*f) can create everything in the Universe.
=====================…

 

[s0cratus]

Without *gravity* there isn't *time*.
The *time* ( together with gravity) was created from eternity (T=0K)
according to Einstein's GRT.
==..

 

[Vrecknidj]

Without *gravity* there isn't *time*.

It seems to me (it may not be true, I admit) that spacetime, mass, energy and gravity are all bundled together in some way such that they cannot be unraveled.

We can talk about primes and composites separately, we can talk about rational and irrational numbers separately, we can talk about real and imaginary numbers separately, but, it makes no sense to speak of "the existence of composite numbers, independent of the existence of primes."

We can ask "What is prime?" And we can try to get at an answer that leaves aside other number types, but, to what end? The entire number system is internally dependent. It's all or nothing.

Similarly, I think, we'll find the physical universe. Asking "what is time" without asking "what is gravity" and "what is space" and "what is energy" and "what is matter" is not helpful.

Sure, by bracketing one from another, we've noticed properties of this or that (we know even numbers divide evenly by 2, we know all prime numbers of more than two digits end in 1, 3, 7 or 9, etc., we know that light has a constant speed, we know there's a relationship between masses, space and forces that we call gravity), and that's been helpful. But, the existential and ontological questions, I think, require, ultimately, that we look at this with the widest-field lens we can find.