Can You Stand Still in Time Without Movement in Space?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hano34
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spacetime
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the relationship between motion in space and the perception of time, particularly through the lens of relativity. Participants assert that standing still in space does not equate to standing still in time, as motion is inherently relative to other objects. The conversation emphasizes that without other entities to compare motion against, the concept of time becomes irrelevant. Key points include the understanding that relativity applies only when there are multiple observers or objects in motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Basic understanding of Einstein's Theory of Relativity
  • Familiarity with concepts of relative motion
  • Knowledge of acceleration and centrifugal forces
  • Awareness of time dilation effects in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Einstein's Theory of Relativity in detail
  • Explore the concept of time dilation and its implications
  • Investigate the effects of acceleration on perception of time
  • Learn about the relationship between motion and reference frames
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators, and anyone interested in the fundamental principles of time and motion as described by relativity.

Hano34
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone.

I was thinking, that if you were to stand perfectly still in space wouldn't you stand still in time too? Well since space is relative, and you wouldn't be able to "stand still", but what if you were the only thing in the universe? Because the way i understand relativity you don't move, unless you have something to move relatively to.
Would you be able to "move" through time?

By the way, if my question is simply ridicoulus then i appologies, i have not even started high school yet, so my understanding of physics is somewhat limited.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey!

Because the way i understand relativity you don't move, unless you have something to move relatively to.

Well you could raise your arm, point your finger, then start moving around that point your finger is standing. There you go, you are moving relative to something =P In this case you eyes are moving faster than your finger.. Expand the example for your object choice.

You also know if you are accelerating or deccelerating through the centrifugal forces applied.

What do you mean by move through time?
 
Hano34 said:
I was thinking, that if you were to stand perfectly still in space ...
This is not a meaningful concept. There is no absolute 'rest' or 'motion', it is only relative, defined with respect to other matter.

You're right to think there is a relationship between motion and time because our perception of other peoples clocks depends on relative velocity.
 
Last edited:
Mentz114 said:
our perception of other peoples clocks depends on relative velocity
That's the key point. If there are no other people, no need to bother about their clocks.
 
Ich said:
That's the key point. If there are no other people, no need to bother about their clocks.

Practically speaking; if there are other people around, still no need to bother about their clocks. Since nobody is traveling through relativistic speeds for quite a long long time.
 
Ich said:
That's the key point. If there are no other people, no need to bother about their clocks.
Apologies to Hano32, I misread his post.
 
Actually I think your answer hit the nail on the head. Relativity always happens to other people. If there's only one, there's nothing to do for relativity.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K