Hi woodsong
“what is time”, is an interesting question... but it may be a trap in itself. Because the question begs the answer “time is...”,
i.e. it implies there is definitely some “thing” called time, and we want to know what it is.
This is fine, but this approach completely hides from view another possibility, which is, the possibility that the world may be just as you actually see it.
By this , I mean, consider what you personally actually observe...
1-matter(/energy) existing, and,
2- matter moving changing and interacting in all directions.
That seems pretty obvious, but the key question most people don’t seem to see , or ask themselves is this...
-What if matter just exists, moves, changes, and interacts... not heading into a “future”, not leaving a “past” behind it?... -would this be enough to misled us into thinking a thing called “time” exists?
That is the question I think anyone trying to understand “time”, or no time, should seriously consider, however, (with respect), I think the answers you will get here will probably be a lot of people stating “Einstein’s relativity tells us space and time are merged”, and making a lot of “time is...” statements. E.g. “time is another ‘dimension’ “
(ie opinions stated as fact)
But, with respect, they will probably contain no solid reasoning. ( i.e. just restating what is heard elsewhere ).
Though many people assume Einstein’s relativity in some way proves time exists ( and is merged with space), in fact very few people seem to check the actual paper “on the electrodynamics of moving bodies” itself.
If you do so, yourself...
https://sites.google.com/site/abriefhistoryoftimelessness/special-relativity/the-electrodynamics-of-moving-bodies
you will find relativity itself only actually observes that there is “movement”, i.e the (translated) paper in actual fact says...
"Electrodynamics" "section 1 Kinematics
If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time...
If, for instance, I say, “That train arrives here at 7 o'clock,” I mean something like this:
“The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.”
This seems perfectly acceptable, unless you realise that the paper says we compare the co-ordinates ( location) of one thing to a thing called “time”,
But in fact the co-ordinates of one thing (a train) are only compared to the coordinates of another thing ( the location of a rotating pointer).
At this point you really have to think for yourself, logically
-if a thing called time exists, then a rotating point is a useful indicator,
but
-a rotating pointer does not prove there is a past, a future, or a thing called time.
(we cant just make a pointer rotate, call its movement "time", and claim we have proved movement, and another thing called "time" exists... otherwise with the same logic, i can get a dog, "call" it a dragon, and claim i have reason to believe dogs, and "dragons" exist and are related...)
So, imo, you and I don’t see any sign of a “future” actually arriving, or a “past” actually existing or receding, and Einstein’s paper only observes motion... but “calls” one example of motion “time”.
Therefore, the 'dimension' people refer to as time, may just be nothing more thatn the dimension, lit "measurable quantity", of the movement of the tip of a rotating hand on a numbered dial... and just observing motion, but concluding there is there for a fourth temporal/spatial “dimension” is not sound reasoning.
And if you check what you hear carefully for yourself, you should find that wherever anyone thinks they are talking about a thing called “time” they are always just looking at some example of regular motion, or thinking about the “idea” of a thing called time. And all the arguments you may hear to support the idea of time will in fact rest on ‘blindly’ just accepting the existence without question, of unobservable, and unproveable “phenomena” (eg a “past” or “future” etc).
You will hear that “time” has a “flow”, “direction”, “past and “future”.. none of which you will actually observe. And, imo, all of which exist as “ideas”, that we may convince ourselves make sense.
re your question ...
So can time change the same way as sound. If this is the case the more you are always from an object in time the less it effects time
Einsteins General Relativity does show us that moving/changing things , e.g. anything down to a vibrating, an atom and beyond, are indeed affected by gravity, and do slow down in a strong gravitational field... but it may be unwise to assume this also proves there is a past, a future or a thing called time that flows.
(I’ve written a detailed book on the possibility “ a brief history of timelessness”, Here’s a couple of youtubes if you’re interested)
All the best
Matt Marsden
(youtubes)
more general aspects of 'time'
Timelessness, Downstairs at the Kings Head London (rt)
[Does Time exist? How 'Time travel Paradoxes' can't happen without "the past".]
Considering 'time travel'
Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Cox's Science of Dr Who:
[Time Travel,Timeless Answers to Prof Brian Cox's Science of Dr WHO]
