Can You Stand Still in Time Without Movement in Space?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Hano34
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spacetime
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of standing still in time while being stationary in space, particularly in the context of relativity. Participants explore the implications of motion, rest, and the relationship between time and relative velocity, considering both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether standing perfectly still in space would equate to standing still in time, suggesting that motion is relative and depends on other objects.
  • Another participant responds by illustrating that movement can be defined relative to a point, such as raising an arm, and questions what is meant by "moving through time."
  • A different participant asserts that the concept of absolute rest or motion is meaningless, emphasizing that motion is only defined relative to other matter.
  • Some participants highlight that if there are no other observers, the concept of relative time becomes irrelevant.
  • One participant notes that in practical terms, the effects of relativity are negligible in everyday situations where no one is traveling at relativistic speeds.
  • Another participant agrees that relativity applies primarily to interactions between multiple observers, suggesting that if only one observer exists, relativity has no practical implications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that motion and time are relative concepts, but there is no consensus on the implications of standing still in time or the meaningfulness of such a state. Multiple competing views remain regarding the relationship between motion, time, and the necessity of other observers.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding and assumptions about relativity, and the discussion includes unresolved questions about the nature of time and motion without external reference points.

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

High School Traveling through space at zero km/s
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
High School How does curvature of spacetime affect the motion of test particles?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
High School Does the gravitational distortion of mass still exist in the past?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
High School Relativistic simultaneity and effects on time
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Undergrad Is momentum conserved as a body falls through a gravitational field?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Undergrad Do you accelerate through time when you stand still on Earth?
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Undergrad Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
High School Rotating disc: tidal relativity across surface of disc
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
High School Time and Space Distortions of Photons: What Am I Misunderstanding?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Theories about light and time near a black hole
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K