How would you know you have never been out? You assume time exists out as it does in.
You misread my response to you.
False. If time and space exist as they do here, regardless of any difference anywhere else, we would always see time here. If time and space existed differently out there, that would not mean it existed that way here. What you see from outside is inside!
The question is the transition between inside and outside of the fishbowl. We know information is coming in. And that information says something about conditions outside. Think of it like this.
Suppose that events happen outside, A->B->C and these take twice as long as inside. The light from A, B, and C is delayed by the amount of time between those events outside. So, when it gets inside, it is *still* shows the *outside* time intervals in what we see here. The events would *look* to be twice as long between the events A, B, and C as they would be for the same events inside.
There is no out there as far as we are concerned in the fishbowl. All light streaming in then exists here in our time. That doesn't tell us what time elsewhere is like. Fast or slow it is the way it exists here.
Well, the light doesn't suddenly appear at the boundary of the fishbowl, does it? It comes from outside and can be used to probe the conditions outside. A fish in a fishbowl can still see the distortions produced by the bowl.
Says who? You think time distorts light? We do not know that. A different space also is not known so you cannot claim distortion. If there was any distortion it might look normal to us anyhow here.
The light has a frequency. If time is different, or non-existent, the light would be different (by having a different frequency or none at all). That produces a distortion.
False. The clock is time unfolding/existing and we only see time exist here. Whatever time may be involved out there does not relate to here unless time and space are the same.
No, it relates to what is inside of here because the light we see inside comes from outside. There is a causal link between the two. And, we can actually watch changes in things outside over time. That time is measured here, of course, but the rates are of the things outside.
Why pretend you know things when you don't? How would you know what a change in time itself and/or space itself would look like here?
Why pretend we don't know things when we do? We can, and do, measure the effects of gravity on space and time *here* and so see the distortions on space and time produced by gravity.
It is all seen here. The frequencies are seen here. Not there. We experience waves and light and all things only here in the fishbowl. Nowhere else ever. If a wave has a time interval or frequency that is only seen here. If we see a star pulse or blink over time, that time we see it in is here. Not there.
But that light was formed there. And it was formed in such a way that we see what we see here. The causal link allows us to determine information about the outside, including that there is no distortion and no problems finding distances and times.
The frequency is seen here only. It exists here.
Example:
"Light waves also come in many frequencies. The
frequency is the number of waves that pass a point in space during any time interval, usually one second. We measure it in units of cycles (waves) per second, or hertz."
How Light Works
In other words we see light coming in here in the fishbowl in our time and it is HERE that it is clocked!
And yet it was produced out there in such a way that it becomes what we measure here. That connection limits the possibilities of what is out there.
How would you know what matches what? It matches what we expect here, that is all we know. You have nothing to compare it to since you have only one point of reference and observation.
False. The fact that light from out there matches what we expect for hydrogen in here says that, somehow, the light produced out there manages to look like that from hydrogen in here. And *that* means that the properties of the hydrogen (or whatever) out there match what we see in here (otherwise the light from out there could be *anything*, but it still matches what we see in here).
You made that up. How would you know what time itself would do or 'look' like if it was different? Do you think you can see time?
We can model how differences in the nature of time would affect our observations. For example, if time flowed faster out there, it would show up in the records the light from there would show here.
We have no way of knowing how long anything takes outside the fishbowl. All we can know is how much of our time things take once something arrives here! That says NOTHING about time out there. If light from the edge of the observed universe took, say, one hour to get to earth (!) when it did get here, we would see it moving in OUR time, and slow compared to that. We may be looking at things in real time out there, in effect, rather than billions of years ago.
And suppose there are 3 events and that these events happen over a course of 5 seconds 'out there'. The light from them would maintain a difference of five seconds as it moves towards us, so we would see the light being over a time period of 5 seconds *even though* similar events would take 10 seconds here. that difference would tell us that time goes faster out there.
it isn't a single measurement. it is a sequence of measurements over time showing that things change out there, which means there is time, and we can measure the rates of those changes by the observations here.
There is no nearby anything. We do not know how far away a star or supposed gas cloud is. Regardless, all time experienced is here.
Give an example.
Some info. Not what you thought though. No distances or mass or sizes or time or travel etc.
Of course you would see things take consistent time here where you see the light.
Why would that be an 'of course'? if they take 10 seconds out there, the light would show an interval of 10 seconds even if similar things would take 5 seconds here.
