[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 281 KB, 468x347, 1350259184438.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5159569 No.5159569 [Reply] [Original]

Recently me and my friend has a discussion about the definition of time. He said "distance is time" and I asked him to explain, also saying that distance is only the space between 2 points. We then continued to discuss until he said "So distance is how much energy it takes to get from one point to another. Again this implies there is a point in which it will stop". I was very confused by this and tried to prove him wrong by the same methods I'd been using, but he had to go. What I want to know is where is he getting this idea from, and who is correct?

>> No.5159575

What theory proves time is equivalent to distance?

>> No.5159581

>>5159575
That's what I want to know. He simply stated "distance is time", and we then discussed, leaving me confused. Have any ideas where he may be getting this from, or why he's also thinking distance is the amount of energy exerted to get from point A to point B?

>> No.5159583

this is either trolling or making an appeal to Minkowski space

>> No.5159589

Time is the illusion of movement.

>> No.5159606

>>5159583
I originally thought I was misunderstanding but I can assure you he's not trolling. Also, I highly doubt he's referring to Minkowski space, given he's even learned about that (we're only high school level, usually learning from our own independent researches on these subjects). I think he may just be skewing the definition.
>>5159589
We went into how time is just an illusion or placeholder created by man and is meaningless to the universe, but that does not explain how distance is the amount of energy an object exerts to get from one point to another.

>> No.5159656

>>5159606

Time and Distance are all relative to your viewpoint

also seconds are not equivalent to meters or feet or any time of distance.

>> No.5159657

>>5159656
type of distance, apprently im retarded and i dyslexed myself there

>> No.5159663

>>5159656

>"relative to your viewpoint"

I see what you did there

>> No.5159673

>>5159656
>>5159657
I know this and how certain viewpoints can change everything, but what I'm saying is that it is an overall rule that it is the space between 2 different points, is it not (not using any set measurements)? I'm just having a hard time understanding what he means by saying distance is the amount of energy exerted by an object to get from point a to point b. I've never heard that before, and find it a very odd presumption.

>> No.5159685

>>5159673
because it's wrong

you can spend 0 energy to get from one point to another or you can spend infinite energy to get from one point to another

just like there's no time of distance, there's no energy of distance

>> No.5159689

your friend is a retard. this is just plain stupid.

saying time is placeholder created by man is like saying spacial dimensions are as well. thats just metaphysics and the domain of science rejects

>> No.5159693

He has wierd phrasing, energy is only required to move in a potential. He might mean, that in a given potential, the distance a particle moves can be used to find time. But in empty space any kinetic energy will allow a particle to move without a change in energy, since change in energy is just the integral of force w.r.t distance

>> No.5159696

>>5159685
That's what I was trying to say all along, but I obviously put it in different words. He said he got the idea from a forum on http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.com/forum.php .

>> No.5159721

>>5159693
That's I believed he was going for at some point in discussion, talking about light years and distances, but all of that is irrelevant now. I'd get him to clarify, but he doesn't want to put up his end of what happened as he doesn't want an endless argument.

>> No.5159784

This is his "retarded" friend. Anyhow earlier in the chat I clarified that I had used the wrong word to describe our argument about how distance is time. The original argument was about how I thought distance was better described as how much energy it takes to get from one point to another. Of course this is a matter of opinion and perspective.

>> No.5159802

it's not a matter of perspective or opinion.

distance is not related to the amount of energy required. nor can these be related in any way. as stated before it's irrelevant; you could expend infinite energy going nowhere or no energy going an infinite distance.

the fact is you're wrong bud.

>> No.5159812

I didn't come here to argue or accept that I am wrong.

>> No.5159880

>>5159812
lel

>> No.5159957

>>5159673
it's odd because it's 100% wrong.

I have no idea why he would even think that, most simple equations for energy (1/2mv^2) or (mgh) can be quantified in meters.

all youd have to say to prove him wrong in that thinking is distance is measured in ft or meters, you dont say "it took me 14 feet to move the book up to the desk" or something. he dumb

>> No.5159961

>>5159957
can't* be quantified in meters

>> No.5160154

Your friend is one of those deep thinkers who try to understand the nature of reality rather than repeat the textbook rote like most of the droll morons on this forum.

Yes, distance is time.

>> No.5160569

>>5159569

Time is distance. You ever say something like "oh well that's about 20 minutes from here." or "I'm like an hour out from you." You're using time to equate distance.

>> No.5160755

>>5159569

Minute physics does a really good job of explaining what I think you're getting at...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp20Sc8qPeo&feature=relmfu

>> No.5160835

>>5159569
>distance is how much energy it takes to get from one point to another

You do realize this is completely circular. Your friend is a charlatan. Stop talking to him.

>> No.5161202

>>5160835
Yes because an intelligent conversation between two high school students could be considered trickery.