Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 0 down vote favorite

I was thinking one day, if time doesn't exist and there is only space. I was trying to think about what other measurementunit could be instead of speed(m/s) and acceleration(m/s2) and I came to energy.

If we think on the most fundemental level of physics, the atom, molecules and smaller organisms and think about how these move from one space to another, it requires an amount of energy to come from A to B, or it needs a certain amount of energy to maintain an exponential movement.

But the amount of energy is never constant since the amount needed depends on the organisms energy efficiency or how much energy per calorie the organisms mechanisms can produce.

Could this be fact?

share|improve this question
2  
Can you please say what it means for time to "exist" in a positive way, involving measurements and experiments? Otherwise, the question is ambiguous or meaningless. – Ron Maimon Jan 24 '12 at 23:32
3  
Ron is right, this question is not at all clear enough to get a meaningful answer. It could lead to an interesting explanation of parametrizing paths through spacetime with coordinates other than time, but that would need to be a more focused question. – David Zaslavsky♦ Jan 25 '12 at 8:17
"space" and "time" are words, the 4dimensional "spacetime" is a space like any other, call it "KinnSpace" if you want, then relativity and electromagnetism on your KinnSpace would explain a lot of the observable universe... there is nothing new in what you say, I only see a renaming... – propaganda Jan 25 '12 at 10:08
In other words, and ignoring your remarks about energy, biology, organisms and efficiency, it looks like you just made the transition from [seeing say the movement of a falling ball as a spatial vector position in function of time] to [adding geometric interpretation of time by realizing that time t can be seen as an added dimension to space]. In other words from using elements of {f| f: R->R^3} to structures defined on R^3xR or R^4... which is good for you, but most of us will feel like "been there done that, in elementary school". – propaganda Jan 25 '12 at 10:18
dont be surprised with how people here will treat your questions if they consider it extremely obvious or a prerequisite to physics.stackexchange... – propaganda Jan 25 '12 at 10:18
show 1 more comment

closed as off topic by David Zaslavsky♦ Jan 25 '12 at 8:15

Questions on Physics Stack Exchange are expected to relate to physics within the scope defined in the FAQ. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about closed questions here.

1 Answer

up vote 0 down vote

If there is no time, you "freeze" everything else, then there is no such thing as motion anymore. You're talking about energy production, but how do you define this without time? You are talking about a lot of changes in time, but without time as a coordinate, you won't be able to define this correctly.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.