##### Relativity says that ‘time and distance are interchangeable’. In relativistic
equations ‘1 second’ of *time *is said to directly relate to 300,000 km of
*distance*, and where we have a distance/time relationship the two can be exchanged
on a kind of sliding scale to produce what are exotically known as ‘Space-Time
Intervals’.

##### But are ‘distance and Time’ needed
here? Or can just ‘distance and motion’* account for everything that Einstein
proposes?

**(* And 'distortions' in distance and motion as suggested by Relativity.)**

When considering ‘space-time’ intervals, if two events are
said to happen say 1,000km, and 10 seconds away from each other, these two
values can be shown as the edges of a right angled triangle – with each ‘second
of time’ being converted to a distance of 300,000km (or vice versa). In this
way Pythagoras’s theorem can be used to give the hypotenuse of the triangle.
And this value is said to be the space-time distance between the events.

A reader familiar with this idea might think that I have not
understood this exchange rate, or that I am missing the point and (wrongly) just
seeing all time as distance. However what I am saying is that I do see how and
why this mathematics works but the situation can be seen in two distinct
ways...

Either time *does* exist and this idea of
understanding distance and time to be merged and interchangeable is essentially
correct, or, time does *not* exist and the merging of the idea of time
with the reality of distance is an inevitable consequence of us trying to
insist that time exists and then being motivated to create a way to include it
in our understanding of the world.

Given that all we observe around us is matter existing,
moving, changing and interacting (at up to the speed of light) ‘now’, and that
our core reasons for even assuming that time, and the past or future, exist can
be seen to be wrongly founded*, I am suggesting that
although the maths makes sense it is a misunderstanding, and only the ‘motion
and distance’ (which we do actually directly observe) are needed to understand
and explain the world around us. Therefore the fact that the space-time view
and the mathematics behind it do seem to work and make sense is actually
something that does not *prove* the existence of time but is actually a
view that wrongly supports the idea that time exists.

(* a casual opinion of our memories may be that they seem to show that ‘the past’ in some way exists – but a deeper look shows that they only prove that matter can exist and interact)

### Reinterpreting space-time intervals as *only*
being distances.

We can reinterpret the situation as
follows; if you consider a crash that happened ‘a week ago’ and ’10 km away’
from where you are now, then the space-time view of things, and the
calculations that go with it will give you a value for 'how far away in the past' as a ‘space-time
interval’ the event is said to be from ‘where you are now - in the present’.

(see Diagram ‘A’ below)

**Diagram A - The physical distance away, and the 'time' away from you that an event 'happened' are said to be merge-able in a space-time sense. (but I think things are simpler)**

Now consider the view that there is no time, and thus no
temporal past (or future). You are just where you are, and the scene of the
accident is just where it is, 10 km away from you. Then also consider the real
and existing ‘physical consequences’ of the crash. If say a van hits a lamppost
then as it crashes we can expect an audible ‘bang’ and perhaps even an
explosion and thus a visible flash of light. Consequences of the crash such as
sounds and images automatically ‘flee the scene’ as they are created.
Consequences fleeing the scene do so at different speeds, e.g. sounds from the
crash will be released at around a million times slower than light images of an
explosion.

If we just consider the light fleeing the scene then it does
so at the maximum speed possible that any consequence can travel (the speed of
light). Now if you consider the distance ‘B’ from where you are sitting to ‘an
image of the crash’ that is flying away from the scene ‘straight up’ from the
roof of the van, at the speed of light, then you can see we have a triangle
that is essentially identical to the Einstein’s space-time interval triangles.

**Diagram 2 - In this simpler view we just accept that 'consequences' (images etc) of any event may 'rush' away from the scene at up to the speed of light. And it is the real and existing physical location of these we are referring to.**

The difference between ‘space-time’ intervals and
‘space-consequence’

distances - being, that instead of saying
‘time and seconds exist’, and ‘seconds can be converted in to distance by
multiplying them by 300,000 km’, we are just saying ‘consequences exist’, and consequences
tend to flee an event at speed. So if you want to calculate how physically far
away from you any particular consequence is (e.g. the image of the explosion or
event the gravitational ripples caused by it) you can do so with Pythagoras’s
theorem. This distance will be constantly increasing! But not because time
exists just because unhindered light is always moving.

>> 09 General Relativity.

Back to >> ∆ Timeless v.Time distinctions (Rhetoric and Semantics).