Who says there's no difference? I was referring to the OPs hypothetical question, not suggesting that there is no difference.
What difference is there then? Educate me. I'm not saying I'm right, just that at my current level of physic knowledge I don't see a difference.

Saying movement creates time is like saying movement creates space.
I don't see the basis for saying that.

Time is duration, space is distance, motion is change in relative position over a duration. Time is local, space is global, motion is both. Time is interchangeable with space while motion requires both. There are lots of differences between time and motion these are just a few off the top of my head.

But we define time in movement. For example per " 299 792 458m a photon in vacuum travels", more generally: t =1/"lenght travelled by uniform constant motion" or pr xx rays of a cesium atom, or more old school, a time glass. When we measure motion we just compare it to other form of motions we know are constant. Time is derived from motion

Time is local, space is global, motion is both. Time is interchangeable with space while motion requires both
I assume you refer to time dilation. I thought briefly about it and don't think it changes anything. It's the constants that govern the rate of interaction that are "local". The end result is the same, which is exactly what I'm arguing for :D

Last edited:
Time or motion, there can not be movement without the time needed for the change, but having time with no motion happens all the time. Think of a pulsar, we measure a burst of photons and when they stop we will measure the gap between the bursts as if it were moving at the same speed as the photons, a measure of time without motion? How would Morse code work without the constant dilation of time even without a signal?

i thought time was a catalogue of change

Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
i thought time was a catalogue of change
Simplistically time is a dimension and we measure passage through that dimension. Cataloguing is to time as tape measures are to space; they observe rather than create.

time is just an illusion created by our brains. it doesnt really exist
it should not matter if "time" has an end begining or present, bcuz if it does by chance have an end, would we even know that it has ended? wouldnt our minds still percieve the "present" as still going on into the future? how do we know that "time" has not ended already?

Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
it should not matter if "time" has an end begining or present, bcuz if it does by chance have an end, would we even know that it has ended? wouldnt our minds still percieve the "present" as still going on into the future? how do we know that "time" has not ended already?
I have no idea what you mean by if time ends or even if that statement makes sense but perception is a process that occurs through time. Therefore it is impossible for us to perceive without time and thus because we are perceiving we know that time exists and continues to exist.

i was just trying to understand if the question was referring to time ending, kinda puzzles me when time is talked about

Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus