6 ms·
I think what you're saying is fair and I realize it might be pushing it to remove the dimension of time to articulate my position. Regarding the last question,
by joslin01 8y ago
I think what you're saying is fair and I realize it might be pushing it to remove the dimension of time to articulate my position.
Regarding the last question, if I understood forces correctly, it's that they remain in motion until an equal or greater force stops them right? Why do we need time for that out of curiosity?
- haZard_OS 8y agoDon't you think the concept of "motion" presupposes time? For that matter, every verb in existence presupposes time. A fascinating book on this topic is "Philosophy in the Flesh" by George Lakoff: https://amzn.to/2vCkS9s https://amzn.to/2vCkS9s
- ben_w 8y agoThanks. Velocity is the derivative of position with regard to time. Does it exist if there is no time? It might be that momentum is the fundamental thing and velocity is just a consequence of it. Or not, I don’t know. Momentum has a direct influence on Einstein field equations, and I don’t know enough maths to follow GR (just two A-levels) so I have no idea if that “direct” influence is still present at a no-more-future boundary condition. My insufficient maths skills are, amongst other things, why I don’t trust my understanding that a black hole singularity really is a no-more-future boundary condition.