Am I wrong? Help me sci fags.
Inb4 handwriting of a child.
>>7724164
define "still"
TL:DR you can't
>>7724172
Not moving.
>>7724164
>Tell me why I'm wrong
>>7724174
I'm sitting here in my chair staring at the thread waiting for a reply. I'm not moving, but I have mass, and time still passes nonetheless.
>>7724164
I think time is granular and quantized. Therefore a still object will undergo change at the maximum rate the universe allows. Something moving near or at c, the minimum.
>>7724177
You might not be moving, but you're certainly being moved.
>>7724177
No, my point is if you really weren't moving, at all, at a fixed point in space, time would move much faster for you. You would see the rest of the universe moving much slower.
>>7724183
Not in a way you could ever detect.
>>7724164
pointless thought experiment #3509102 thanks /sci/
>>7724189
Hey you fucking whore, back the fuck off?!?!
>>7724179
If the minimum is 0 (say in the event horizon of a black hole or something travelling at the speed of light) Would there be a limit to what the maximum was?
>>7724164
By this thinking, if you took something that weighed a gram and accelerated it to near the speed of light it would have the same mass as a black hole.
btw being still means not moving in reference to another object which means the distance between them stays the same in every direction at any point in time.
>>7724209
So my definition of still is wrong, substitute it with, "at a fixed point in space."
>>7724211
dunno man i just pulled this out of my ass
>>7724211
According to /sci/, location in space doesn't exist.
Enjoy your newly discovered omnipresence :^)
>>7724180
on every frame of reference?
>>7724172
Do you even know what TL;DR stands for?
>>7724172
>tl;dr
If you managed to stop on the exact spot that the big bag occurred, the exact center of the universe, would you not be "still"
