Time, Gravity, Space.

We shall have a very long conversation when we next meet, oh yes.

Reverse Simplicity wrote:At this point in time I am of the viewpoint that there is no "time" it is merely the deteriorating effect of mass and gravity. The twin paradox is understood as not because of his acceleration (Which would cause him to be under the effect of gravity) but it is the distance he achieves from gravity.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not quite sure what you mean.  Also, if you have distance (=space) I think you need time as well; since they're linked in space-time, having one necessitates having the other.


As far as I know (which I think is the current standard), time is real.  Whether it actually literally 'moves forward' or that's just our perception, I'm not sure (and I'm not even sure if you could design an experiment to tell the difference, which means that it doesn't really matter).  What we do know is that when you put time as we currently understand it into our models, they give accurate predictions, which means the models are reflecting reality on some level.  Any explanation of 'there is not time' would have to explain everything that time already does, and do a better job (since just replacing 'time' with 'something else' is an unnecessary overcomplication if it doesn't improve the model).

My understanding of the chain of discoveries leading to the Twins Paradox is as follows:
The Michelson-Morley Experiment established that the speed of light was a constant
Einstein followed this through to its logical conclusion and came up with time dilation - that any observer will see someone moving relative to them slow down; the faster they're moving, the slower time passes for them (verified with experiments with muons and atomic clocks)
The Twins Paradox comes about when one twin is 'stationary' and the other moves away and comes back at relativistic speeds.  The paradox is that each of them should see the other age more slowly, since both twins see themselves standing still and the other twin moving.  The paradox is resolved because the situation is not symmetrical; the twin that moves away and comes back has to accelerate to change their direction, so they cannot be in an inertial frame, while the 'stationary' twin is - the 'moving' twin will really be younger (have experienced less time) when they meet again.
(I think the 'moving' twin can still consider themselves to be stationary; they'll just think gravity is fluctuating, rather than their spaceship is accelerating)

My apologies if I explained that poorly, or if it didn't actually answer your questions.

Reverse Simplicity wrote:I am of the opinion that time is not a dimension that can be traveled, other than 1 second per second.

So in other words, time is a dimension that can be traveled, but only at 1 second/second? Any observer will see time passing for themselves at 1s/s. An observer will see time being dilated for everything around them that moves, so one second for the observer is not the same as one second for any other observer. Likewise, an observer will see space contract for a moving observer, so neither space nor time are absolute. You can combine them into spacetime, though, which is invariant (the same for all observers in an inertial frame).

Reverse Simplicity wrote:Considering stationary is a relative term (The universe is constantly expanding)

'Stationary' is a poor choice of words in a discussion on relativity. Better is 'in an inertial frame', moving at a constant velocity and not acted upon by any forced. Inertial frames can seem stationary to the observer in them.

Reverse Simplicity wrote:I believe that if the ship was to be traveling the exact speed that puts the twin under exactly and constantly g1 force when the twins meet up at earth 10 years later, they will have experienced the same deterioration. (Unless either one is subjected to radiation or other aging effects)

If something is constantly under 1g of force, it is accelerating, so it cannot be travelling at a constant velocity. Also, if the twins are travelling at a constant velocity, they won't be able to meet back up on Earth - they're continually moving away from each other without turning around. If the spaceship twin is travelling under a constant acceleration, that's not the twin paradox; the Earth twin is in an inertial frame, while the spaceship twin is not, so their situations are not symmetrical.

Reverse Simplicity wrote:Gravity and temperature effects movements and sensory perception. Time has no testable effects, it is simply a measurement between solids.

Is a measurement between solids not a testable effect? If you and I are standing 10m apart, and I throw a ball to you at 10m/s, and you catch it 1s later, that's a testable effect.

Reverse Simplicity wrote:Edit: I want to add that there really are not paradox's in reality, it is just something we are not understanding properly.

True; but the Twins Paradox is not an example of this - the 'paradox' has been comprehended and resolved.

Darth Skywalkerbacca wrote:I like the the fact that Time is a physics basis and still we have no real understanding or definition of it, some may say we don't need too because the maths works but I find one needs to know what they are working with to use it in it's full effect.

The same could be said of space, or mass, or electric charge.  Everything is defined by everything else; none of it really has meaning on its own, but that's OK because nothing is ever just on its own.

I personally find that as long as the maths works out, that's enough for me.  Granted, you need to know all the maths to use it to its full effect, but that's what experimentation is for; to figure out what the maths is in different situations.

Darth Skywalkerbacca wrote:maybe we need to wait for a theory of everything before the basics become clear

Haha. Actually, I'm not even sure if a theory of everything would tell us what stuff actually is, just what it does in relation to all other stuff; and perhaps why it's that instead of any other possibility.