does time exist?

An object, say the sun, has mass. Gravity is a function of mass. That is to say, bodies of more mass have more garvity. The gravitation exerted by an object is what causes the curvature of space.

Sure, but you could equally assert that curvature of space-time (let's call it gravity) is what causes mass. That mass is a function of gravity.

Not really.

to me, time is just a measurement of something to help us understand some things better or something like that....theres no feet or inches implemented in the universe...we made it up...as there is no seconds or minutes...we made that up...but it helps measure events and past and future...also i beilve there is no present, as george carlin says its either the recent past or the near future "what time is it now?" " oh you mean when you asked me or now?" "now" " well its ..oops there goes that second" its also a barriar because we cant go back in time....or forward.......well for now anyways.

Why not? There's clearly an inseparable relationship between space-time curvature and matter. How then can we say which is the cause of which? Perhaps the whole approach of causality isn't adequate to describe this singular phenomenon?

You should read "The Elegant Universe" It's a really good book that explains everything includnig special and general relativity and quantum mechanics in easy-to-grasp examples.

OK, you've read it, so please explain why not, in easy-to-grasp steps.

This isn't quite right though - the italic part. In relativity, gravity is just the name given to the curvature of space-time associated with matter. Gravity does not cause the curvature as you seem to be saying; it is the curvature. There is clearly a direct link between matter and space-time...

You've got it a bit skewed. Gravitational fields is what bends and curves space-time. The curvature of space-time is how gravity affects objects (plantes et al) in space. Relativity is just that. It is the idea that all things we observe are only valid from a given viewpoint - that an opposite observation is just as correct for another observer.

Relativity does get into gravity of earth and how the acceleration due to gravity (9.8m/s^2) is absolutely no different than an object travelling with the same acceleration. We can cancel gravity out by accelerating at the same rate in the opposite direction.

We know that as our velocity increases through a spacial plane, the rate at which we move through time decreases proportionally. Given this and the fact that gravity is no different than accelerating at a given speed, your idea would sugest that it is the curvature of space-time that actually allows us to accelerate and be acted upon by that force. We can accelerate in any direction we choose and change headings on the fly. Your idea would mean that space-time had to be curved in the precise way along our path to allow that.

You've got it backwards.

on the theory of relativity, how does going faster slow down time?

am i wrong in assuming the acceleration would exert force on atoms and just slow the molecular motion? so his theory would only work while accelerating? or is it any motion?

im a math noob and i havent ever taken any college classes so if this is "basic" dont be to harsh on me!

the very basic premis of relativity is that all motion is the same.

when you say math noob... do you have an understanding of basic vectors? like <1> ? do you know how to speed is calculated from a vector ? these are really the essential things to understand what you're asking.

Um..no, the basic premise of relativity is that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames.

Ugh. Read some more.

Actually, let me say, more clearly... The basic premise of Relativity is that all motion is relative depending on your viewpoint. My point is that one sort of motion can be equated to another type of motion by chaning your viewpoint.

The basic premise is *not* that the speed of light is a constant, that is more the end-point. All of this leads up to that.

I didn't make it through highschool algebra i was so bored. thats what kinda noob lol...

im great with words, but with numbers i r teh sux.

I have no problem with reading more. I was planning on doing that anyway. Now can I say, "Ugh, stop talking out of your ass because it smells funny?"

Einstein based his theory of special relativity on two postulates:

1. The principle of relativity: The laws of physics must be the same in all inertial reference frames.

2. The constancy of the speed of light: The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in all inertial reference frames, regardless of the velocity of the observer or the emitter.

The first part is just a restatement of the principle of Galilean relativity that was already known. All the results of relativity come from part 2, that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.

This is what gives us the Lorentz transformations that account for time dilation, length contraction, the paradox of simultaneity, etc. When the Lorentz equations are applied to relative momentum and kinetic energy,
it is found that E^2 = p^2c^2 + (mc^2)^2...

So, when p=0 (which it rarely does), then the equation simplifies to the famous E = mc^2, which most people think is the complete equation.

well i'll try to explain it simply.

we live in a 3d world. i'm sure you remember the x,x,z thing... well a vector is used to describe motion (or position) along a path.
a vector v = <x,0,0>. so, for example v = <1,0,0> can mean that someone is sitting at that position in space at some time. you can determine velocity by taking the magnitude of a vector. i won't confuse you with the formula for that. BUT... this part is important... suppose you are travelling at 2.828 mph (for mathematical exactedness, you would be travelling at sqrt(8) mph) in a straight line along the x axis. your vector would be <2.828,0,0> or more exactly <sqrt(8),0,0>. if you were to maintain your speed but change your direction and now you are travelling in BOTH the x AND the y axies, your vector would be: <2,2,0>. You'll notice that the number in the first component is less than the original. This is because your are essentially splitting your energy (speed) between the two dimensions. OK, keep all this in mind...

Einstein said that time is the fourth dimension and that we are ALWAYS moving at the speed of light (noted as c). He said though, that we are moving through TIME at the speed of light. So imagine now that our vector looks like this <x,y,z,t>.

What this means is that our speed, the magnitude of the vector, is equal to the speed of light - always. The bulk of our "energy" (or speed) is spent moving us through time. However, just as in the example above, if we begin to move through one of the other dimensions REALLY fast (approaching the speed of light) it requires that we borrow and take some energy from our movement through the other dimensions (like time). This is why time slows down for objects that are moving at speeds approaching that of light.

It is also very important for you to remember that the entire point of relativity is that this "slow time" is only apparent for someone *watching* the object from the outside. If you were riding a space ship at the speed of light, time would move normally for you. People on the outside would see you slow down though. Specifically, your metabolism and life cycles would slow...

Make sense?

yes it does, one more question, if we are moving at the speed of light, how do we accelerate?

i cant wait to go to college, hopefully its as fun as these forums

because we accelerate through SPATIAL (not temportal) dimensions. Through X Y and Z.

oh, i see !