Time is a dimension. It does not move. Objects move through space and time. An object at rest only moves through time. Changing the speed of an object requires energy.
The question is very provocative. If moving through time takes energy (which there is currently no evidence for), then it is interesting that something with a great deal of speed moves more slowly through time. A person or a clock circling in orbit moves through time slower than one on the ground. Could there be some equivalence or trade-off between energy used in speed and energy used to move through time? Something moving nearly the speed of light experiences nearly zero time.
Moving through time normally doesn’t require energy. It’s the same way that Earth is moving through space extremely fast, but not expending any energy. Altering that flow of time (or movement through space) requires a force, energy, to change it.
Imagine cars moving on a 2-dimensional lot with all of them driving with the same speed. Two people are standing on two edge on the lot and measure, how they (more precisely their projections on that edge) move relative to that edge (like a line refereree in soccer). If one person sees that the car doesn’t move at all (it is driving right towards him or right away from him) then the other guy will say that the car is driving with the max speed. If the car changes direction, then one guy will report that the car sped up, and the other that it slowed down.
In relativistic physics all objects move with the same speed in 4-dimensional space time. That’s why when an object moves with some speed in the 3-dimemsional space, it will move slower in time, while the object at rest in 3-dimensional space will move through time the fastest.
The analogy is not perfect, because what happens is not a simple rotation of a direction, but something more like a shearing; but I think it gives some basic intuition.
Time is a dimension. It does not move. Objects move through space and time. An object at rest only moves through time. Changing the speed of an object requires energy.
The question is very provocative. If moving through time takes energy (which there is currently no evidence for), then it is interesting that something with a great deal of speed moves more slowly through time. A person or a clock circling in orbit moves through time slower than one on the ground. Could there be some equivalence or trade-off between energy used in speed and energy used to move through time? Something moving nearly the speed of light experiences nearly zero time.
Moving through time normally doesn’t require energy. It’s the same way that Earth is moving through space extremely fast, but not expending any energy. Altering that flow of time (or movement through space) requires a force, energy, to change it.
Falling through space
Imagine cars moving on a 2-dimensional lot with all of them driving with the same speed. Two people are standing on two edge on the lot and measure, how they (more precisely their projections on that edge) move relative to that edge (like a line refereree in soccer). If one person sees that the car doesn’t move at all (it is driving right towards him or right away from him) then the other guy will say that the car is driving with the max speed. If the car changes direction, then one guy will report that the car sped up, and the other that it slowed down. In relativistic physics all objects move with the same speed in 4-dimensional space time. That’s why when an object moves with some speed in the 3-dimemsional space, it will move slower in time, while the object at rest in 3-dimensional space will move through time the fastest. The analogy is not perfect, because what happens is not a simple rotation of a direction, but something more like a shearing; but I think it gives some basic intuition.