I challenge anybody to challenge this definition: Time is an arbitrary quantifiable measurement indirectly proportional to ageing. I challenge anybody to challenge this statement: There is no space/distance/length between now time and your next now time. p.s now immediately follows now, you can try for yourselves counting time. Count slow or fast, does your counting alter time any? of course not and neither does counting the caesium frequency fast or slow End of story period, there is no time dilation there is timing offset.
Ah...so not actual "Visual" as much as those pesky voices you hear speaking in picture books. Best to ignore them when talking to people.
I'll just tackle one of these, as it shows the rest of your tripe is moronic. now.......................................................................................now. Now that your theory is debunked, perhaps you should actually take a basic physics, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus class. Then you can avoid posting silly things.
Then you are not considering the extent of the meaning, what happens when all the bodies in expansion become visually 0 dimension?
nope. I just showed the length between 2 nows. It is a measureable distance. So, now that your theory is debunked, perhaps you should actually take a basic physics, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus class. Then you can avoid posting silly things.
No you have just considered time as discrete packets instead of a continuous flow where the next moment of now immediately follows now.
You are trying to say that things which are adjoined have a length between them which is logically stupid.