The past

[Darwinian]

Is the past a physical and temporal location that exists 'now' and theoretically can be travelled to or, is time simply an illusion to account for our discrepancy between events that have happened and those that are happening. i.e. Cause and effect.

For example, you can 'slow' time down the faster you travel so that a clock on a space ship travelling at say, .5 the speed of light would be running a lot slower than a clock on Earth. But is this really time itself that has slowed down or simply the effect of increased mass on the workings of the clock (and everything else) actually slowing down cause and effect itself?

If you could somehow be on that spaceship but surround yourself with a field of some sort that would allow your mass to remain stable no matter how fast the ship travelled, would you still experience the same rate of time passing as your shipmates?

As I'm not too keen on this theory please show me how it is not the case as I much prefer the idea of time being a dimension and the past and future already existing somehow.

[Rayaan]

For example, you can 'slow' time down the faster you travel so that a clock on a space ship travelling at say, .5 the speed of light would be running a lot slower than a clock on Earth. But is this really time itself that has slowed down or simply the effect of increased mass on the workings of the clock (and everything else) actually slowing down cause and effect itself?

If time slows down, then I think it should also follow that cause and effect itself will slow down as well because you can't separate time from cause and effect. And that video might give you a little more insight into the nature of time dilation (although I don't fully get it either). But, I can't answer your other questions. I'm interested to see what other members have to say on this topic.

[Darwinian]

Aaaah! Carl Sagan, my hero

[Epimethean]

I have followed some of these bubble theories before, and find them interesting, as trying to separate the past from the verb tenses used to describe it is challenging.

This could be utter rubbish, but have you seen this fellow's thinking on the term, "past event?"

http://www.generativescience.org/books/p...0000000000

[Darwinian]

I have followed some of these bubble theories before, and find them interesting, as trying to separate the past from the verb tenses used to describe it is challenging.

This could be utter rubbish, but have you seen this fellow's thinking on the term, "past event?"

http://www.generativescience.org/books/p...0000000000

Thanks, I'll take a look

Also, Ryaans post seems to be travelling into the future as it started off at 17:53 obviously prior to my carl sagan post

[Rayaan]

Also, Ryaans post seems to be travelling into the future as it started off at 17:53 obviously prior to my carl sagan post

Yeah, sorry about that.

I deleted my first post in this thread because I was changing something in my post. I should have just edited it instead of deleting it. My bad.

[lilphil1989]

For example, you can 'slow' time down the faster you travel so that a clock on a space ship travelling at say, .5 the speed of light would be running a lot slower than a clock on Earth.

I think you're mixing up Galilean relativity and SR. If I were on the spaceship, I would see the ship clock running normally and the Earth clock running slow. Remember, there is no priveleged reference frame with respect to which motion should be defined.

If you could somehow be on that spaceship but surround yourself with a field of some sort that would allow your mass to remain stable no matter how fast the ship travelled, would you still experience the same rate of time passing as your shipmates?

Yes. Relativistic mass is a superfluous concept, and in my experience of explaining relativity, it tends to be more of a hindrance than a help. Mass doesn't change in motion, only the apparent mass as measured by an observer in motion with respect to the massive object.
To go back to our spaceship idea, if I were to measure my mass on the spaceship travelling at 0.5c (w.r.t Earth), it would be exactly the same as it would be if I were to measure it on Earth.

But is this really time itself that has slowed down or . . . . slowing down cause and effect itself?

Empirically, what is the difference?

[Darwinian]

I think you're mixing up Galilean relativity and SR. If I were on the spaceship, I would see the ship clock running normally and the Earth clock running slow. Remember, there is no priveleged reference frame with respect to which motion should be defined.

I probably am However, surely from your position on the ship you would see the Earth clock running quickly so that when you eventually returned to the Earth, you have hardly aged at all whilst your friends and family are much older.

Yes. Relativistic mass is a superfluous concept, and in my experience of explaining relativity, it tends to be more of a hindrance than a help. Mass doesn't change in motion, only the apparent mass as measured by an observer in motion with respect to the massive object.
To go back to our spaceship idea, if I were to measure my mass on the spaceship travelling at 0.5c (w.r.t Earth), it would be exactly the same as it would be if I were to measure it on Earth.

That's a relief then.

[Tiberius]

*post restored*

My admin powers have no limits!

[Rayaan]

*post restored*

My admin powers have no limits!

Cool, I never thought you can restore posts that were deleted! But thanks. Now it doesn't look like Darwinian was talking to himself.