How do we know we are moving forward in time? Maybe the real

File: space_time.jpg (6KB, 255x123px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 255x123px

>>7972386

>>7972603
I don't understand this, can someone elaborate a bit.

I'm not OP and I'm not a retard.

Also to answer your question OP, if we were moving backward in time then gravity would repel, not attract. That's fine you say, why not? But then the big bang, and the primordial mass that began the universe, would've been the end of the universe, not the beginning. It would've been impossible for that primordial mass to form and end the universe as repelling gravity would be working against it.

>>7972386
Why is it so difficult for people to understand there is no such thing as time. It's just a mesurment for change.

That is it. Everything degrades was quicker then others.

>>7972628
>there is no such thing as time.
you're dumb.

if there's no such thing as time then your second statement
>it's just a measurement for change.
is nonsensical: what is "it's" if there's no such thing as time?

time is the fourth dimension and the speed of light is the universal clock. we can always lean on light to derive a sense of time.

It very much exists.

>>7972386
Time can slow down or speed up due to relativity but all reference frames observe events to be progressing "linearly" through time in such a way that we can't control or reverse, only modify the observation of through relativity.

There is no "time" beyond what our minds create to describe events which cannot occur simultaneously in any reference frame. For instance, nuclear decay happens in a predictable, irreversible way. Describing the separation of particle emission events is easy when you consider some temporal dimension of the Universe in which the system exists.

>>7972663
not true, it's perfectly viable to choose some reference frame where two events happen in reverse wrt another reference frame