Strange

Huh? So what. The muon will decay in a few microseconds, even though nothing changes in the meantime. So obviously time passes with no change.

Take the example of a muon then: no internal structure, nothing to change. And yet it still decays after some time. Do you have any evidence for this minimum amount of time? How do you know space is quantised?

Or it implies the non-existence of quanta when you consider that time is continuous and there is no lower bound. (In other words, your statement is an example of the fallacy of begging the question.)

! Moderator Note Moved to Physics. It is not very clear what you are asking. What is an "IN function"?

You could go further, maybe, and say that is the definition of mass: something that curves spacetime.

You know that people still play, and compose music for, harpsichords and clavichords.

Remember this is about relative measurements. The people (and atoms) on the ship will see no change. And, from the point of view of the other observer, the atoms will be compressed as well so they never get close enough to fuse. (Having seen your later post: yes, we have evidence of this.) It is nothing to do with Einstein as an authority figure. It is purely about the evidence. The only reason he is considered an "authority" at all, is because the evidence confirmed most of his ideas. Not all though.

! Moderator Note The thread is walking fine line. It doesn't need contributions like this.

It sounds like yo are describing a rather extreme version of the ladder paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox (Note that, like all "paradoxes" there is no paradox here.)

If you curve the empty spacetime then you will get gravity. Well, depending how you curve it, I suppose. The curvature is a function of the presence of mass (energy)

The experiment you have described so far is non-physical (so you could pretty much make up any answer you like). You seem to think you have created a paradox. But if you invent an unrealistic thought experiment, then it isn't surprising that you can make it inconsistent. Is it possible to frame your question in a way that applies in the real world? If not, that is because the paradox you are imagining does not exist in the real world.

Gravity is purely an effect of the curvature of four-dimensional spacetime. I'm not sure what else you think is required?

That is utterly incomprehensible. (So may be a good basis to start a new religion 🙂) This is off topic. You should ask this in the physics section. The non-zero vacuum energy / virtual particles looks as if it should be the explanation for dark energy. Unfortunately, it is 10120 times too large. This is one of the big problems in current physics.

Apparently, by making sure more people are armed so they can stop the shooter. Has that ever happened? Even once? Even when the school guards are armed? Do people with guns do better if armed robbers attempt to break into their homes? (I am fairly certain they are significantly more likely to be shot, themselves.)

Possibly. But, even if we take logic, instead of simple mathematical statements, there is no temporal aspect. How is that relevant?

The "border" (horizon) of the observable universe recedes at more than c (about 3c, if I remember correctly). Which highlights, again, you can't use SR in a situation where GR is required. The quote clearly shows the question mark at the end of the sentence. I just realised I may have misinterpreted that oddly worded sentence. It took it to mean "What exactly is the ship travelling so fast relative to" but maybe you mean something else? Anyway, it just occurred to me that the perfect answer may be: a neutrino: they travel at speeds indistinguishable (by current measurements) from c.

Why? (This sounds like an example of the fallacy of begging the question. I hope you can persuade me otherwise.) There is only an arrow because you have just written it that way! There is no such arrow in mathematics. And of course the arrow works both ways. If x = 2 (or -2) then x2 = 4. That is why it is an equivalence and not a "process".

I answered it: it is relative to another observer. Your calculations do not answer the question you asked ("What exactly is the ship travelling so fast relative to") although, in passing you say "its relative velocity be to us". So it sounds like we agree. So I don't really know why you denied this initially. It still isn't really clear what you are asking, but it looks like studiot has got the closest trying to calculate the required speed. Note that even if you compressed the visible universe down to 1m (a factor of about 1027) the whole universe is many, many times larger than this. So it is not as if the spaceship would "stick out" of the universe either end. But as Markus points out, it is a completely unphysical scenario. So can you explain a bit more clearly what (and maybe why) you are asking?

It would be a relative measurement. I'm not sure why you said it wouldn't happen.

The Terrible Sea Lion: http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Someone moving relative to the pilot, will see the pilot and her ship contracted. The pilot will see that other person contracted. This must mean that the pilot will, for example, the distance between stars contracted relative to someone who is stationary relative to those stars? (But maybe I have misunderstood the point you are making?)

! Moderator Note It looks like the OP is not interested in discussing anything. Closed.

Haven't we just had this? (x = +/- 2). What is your point? That you posed it as a question? That it took me time to answer? But that doesn't change the facts that: (a) It is only a question because you chose to phrase it like that. It doesn't have to be in the form of question and answer. And (b) time does not appear in the equivalence. Because it is irrelevant. I think that is an interesting question to ask. But we are edging back into philosophy, again. But that is probably unavoidable.

You might be pleased (or disappointed) to know that all these questions are, already, the subject of scientific (and philosophical) inquiry. People including psychiatrists and neurologists are interested in these questions (and a few misguided physicists).

Nope. It is just a relationship. And, whatever you call them, there is no time involved. There is no 't' in the relationship. It is on a flat surface. But not if you draw the circle on a sphere, for example. It can do, when we use it that way. But it doesn't have to. Large parts of it appear to have no relevance to the physical world. (And even where it does, it doesn't necessarily include time as a parameter.)