Atheistforums.com

:evil:

How would it even be measured?

Our perception of time is experiential. At a young age we constantly encounter new experiences, so time seems to move at a slower pace. As we age those experiences diminish, so we dismiss them as occurring. In old age you tend to think back of your experiences over long segments of time, rather than as moments- all of which makes time seem to move faster. And as such, you become more aware of its passage in older age.

:evil:

FUN FACT:

Objects closer to a field of gravity experience time slower than those exposed to a lower gravity field.
The best way to "measure" how fast one "travels" through time would be to see how fast time passes in a literal 0-gravity vacuum, like that in deep-space. The value of the rate of time in said literal 0-gravity environment would be the base and be labeled as 1 - Whereas objects inside a gravity field would be measured on a scale between 0 and 1; Earth, just as a random guess, would probably be 0.995538953 or something like that while the area inside a black hole would be a hypothetical 0.00000001, if not a true 0 - or maybe even a negative number if time starts going backwards inside black holes like some theorize.

I like doughnuts, no matter what time it is!

:evil:

I'm currently traveling at a rate of approximately one second per second.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around this:

Space and time are both spacial dimensions. As you move through space and the faster you go, the more time slows down. Even us sitting at our computers right now are moving not just through the time dimension (the 4th) but also the first 3.

Is there a range of time during the day where we move faster through spacetime? because of the combined movement of orbit + rotation?

Well, in my science textbook, the Earth rotates at 1,600km/h and revolves around the sun at 36,000Km/h

:evil:

:evil:

:evil:

You are already moving thru space-time at the speed of light. Explained, with diagrams:
http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ (http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/)

:evil:

Don't go fucking up the space/time continuum. I don't want the special super bowl edition of the Brady Bunch meets Gilligans Island on the South Shore staring Justin Beiber or some shit like that. :evil:

You know, you would probably be better served of you to just pick up a good university-level textbook on relativity (special or general) and learn the material, rather than than idly speculate about it here.

There is no reference frame that goes at the speed of light. The Lorentz transformation collapses at that speed and you cannot give every event in the local environment its own unique coordinates, so there is no physics that can be done in it.

But there's a more subtle reason: a particle cannot possess 0 total energy in any reference frame. Otherwise, they could simply bubble up by the uncountable bajillions out of the vacuum and cause all sorts of havoc. But the photon (and other particles that travel at the speed of light) has no rest mass, so if there were a legal reference frame where a photon doesn't move, then you would have a frame where photons would bubble up out of nothing and swarm the universe — because while the photon would have no energy in its own frame of reference, in others they would, so you would have a severe disagreement between the basic facts of the universe: in the photon's rest frame, the universe would be filled with an infinitely intense photon bath at all times, whereas in any earthly reference frame, intensities are more finite. You're forced to conclude that photons have no reference frame. And conveniently, they mathematically don't: there's no Lorentz transformation for v = c.

So mass-bearing particles have a non-zero rest energy, which is why in some frames you see them at rest. But that means that they always have at least a liiiitle bit more energy than a photon of the same momentum. Consequently, its 4-momentum is always at least a little bit steeper than that of a photon in any reference frame, and thus they must always be slower than light.

And that's the nitty gritty of it. A massive particle is hoisted by its own petard if it wants to go faster than light. If it had no mass at all, then it could ONLY go at the speed of light.

Quote from: "Solitary"#-o Only with regards to space-time. We are moving through space-time when moving through it, but time would be less. Standing still with regard to it, we would be moving through time, and that would be at the speed of light, according to Einstein. Solitary

Lol, standing still in what frame of reference, exactly? The reason you cannot travel faster than the speed of light is because you can't travel slower, either. You are always moving at light speed in space-time.  Accelerating in the spatial dimensions relative to a given reference point causes time dilation between the two points. You "borrow" from the time vector when you accelerate in space. When your stop accelerating, you are effectively "at rest" with regards to your own spatial reference, and you are then traveling at light speed thru time.

:evil:

Quote from: "Solitary"Since space and time are simply different examples of dimentions, can we speak of an object's speed through time like an objects speed through space?

You move through space at the distance of one foot per foot.  (Or one inch per inch or ...)

You move through time at the speed of one second per second.

Time is not a distance, space is not a duration, and neither one is a speed.

Quote from: "Seabear"You are already moving thru space-time at the speed of light. Explained, with diagrams:
http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ (http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/)

Time is the result of our transition outward from the Big Bang. Our transition outward from the Big Bang is independent from the spatial dimension and is occurring in a dimension that we call the time dimension.

Independent dimensions are perpendicular to each other as we see with independent spatial dimensions. We see this same perpendicularity with the time dimension.

Velocity = distance per unit of time

If you plot this you find that time is perpendicular to all spatial directions.

The rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang, time, is equal to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum for all transitions in the universe, including our transition in the time dimension.

The equation for the difference of position in Space-time is.

[ X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 – C^2 * T^2 ]

This equation result in a difference of position that is ( distance ). Time is converted to distance my multiplying ( time ) , seconds, by the speed of light ( C ) , distance / seconds.

The equation also indicates that we are in transition at the speed of light in the time dimension when multiplying by the speed of light results in the proper conversion to distance.
Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"The rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang, time, is equal to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum for all transitions in the universe, including our transition in the time dimension.

Solitary

I'm not sure what you had in mind with this statement and your use of the word "transitions". But for clarification, the universe is not expanding at the speed of light. If you mean by "transitions" - which is very unclear and not the usual technical language in cosmology - "signals"  then it would be correct to say that signals are transmitted at the speed of light.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Solitary"The rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang, time, is equal to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum for all transitions in the universe, including our transition in the time dimension.

Solitary

I'm not sure what you had in mind with this statement and your use of the word "transitions". But for clarification, the universe is not expanding at the speed of light. If you mean by "transitions" - which is very unclear and not the usual technical language in cosmology - "signals"  then it would be correct to say that signals are transmitted at the speed of light.

It doesn't say that, it says the speed of time is equal to the speed of light, not the universe.

Time is subjective, is it not? We have clocks that measure our time, but we also have the inevitability of our aging. We have the internal clocks of our organs, and the ticking of the universe around us.

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Solitary"The rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang, time, is equal to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum for all transitions in the universe, including our transition in the time dimension.

Solitary

I'm not sure what you had in mind with this statement and your use of the word "transitions". But for clarification, the universe is not expanding at the speed of light. If you mean by "transitions" - which is very unclear and not the usual technical language in cosmology - "signals"  then it would be correct to say that signals are transmitted at the speed of light.

It doesn't say that, it says the speed of time is equal to the speed of light, not the universe.

Time doesn't travel at the speed of light but it does tick at different speed for different observers depending on how fast they are moving and how strong the gravitational field they happen to be in.

Quote from: "stromboli"Our perception of time is experiential. At a young age we constantly encounter new experiences, so time seems to move at a slower pace. As we age those experiences diminish, so we dismiss them as occurring. In old age you tend to think back of your experiences over long segments of time, rather than as moments- all of which makes time seem to move faster. And as such, you become more aware of its passage in older age.

I heard an interesting explanation for the time acceleration we experience as we grow older:  We can only experience time based on the single reference of our personal experience of our own lifetime, which we might consider to be 1 unit.  From ages 0 to 10, we experience 1 unit.  From ages 10 to 20, we experience 1/2 of a unit.  From 20 to 30, it's a third of a unit, and so it goes for each additional 10 years of our life.

I've pondered this theory some, but I suppose not completely.  There could be a flaw in it, but I think it rather mirrors my personal experience of the phenomenon.

Quote from: "SGOS"

Quote from: "stromboli"Our perception of time is experiential. At a young age we constantly encounter new experiences, so time seems to move at a slower pace. As we age those experiences diminish, so we dismiss them as occurring. In old age you tend to think back of your experiences over long segments of time, rather than as moments- all of which makes time seem to move faster. And as such, you become more aware of its passage in older age.

I heard an interesting explanation for the time acceleration we experience as we grow older:  We can only experience time based on the single reference of our personal experience of our own lifetime, which we might consider to be 1 unit.  From ages 0 to 10, we experience 1 unit.  From ages 10 to 20, we experience 1/2 of a unit.  From 20 to 30, it's a third of a unit, and so it goes for each additional 10 years of our life.

I've pondered this theory some, but I suppose not completely.  There could be a flaw in it, but I think it rather mirrors my personal experience of the phenomenon.

 Show the math or it isn't true.

 :P

I don't even have the energy to play with the math, let alone show it to anyone.  I'm not even sure it's true.  I just like it. :-D  :-D

Quote from: "SGOS"I heard an interesting explanation for the time acceleration we experience as we grow older:  We can only experience time based on the single reference of our personal experience of our own lifetime, which we might consider to be 1 unit.  From ages 0 to 10, we experience 1 unit.  From ages 10 to 20, we experience 1/2 of a unit.  From 20 to 30, it's a third of a unit, and so it goes for each additional 10 years of our life.

I've pondered this theory some, but I suppose not completely.  There could be a flaw in it, but I think it rather mirrors my personal experience of the phenomenon.

That's how I've always seen it.  To a 1 hour old baby, an hour is a lifetime.  To me, an hour is a minuscule portion of a lifetime.  That, to me, is why time passes faster to an old man than to a very young child, to whom "tomorrow" seems impossibly far in the future.

Quote from: "Seabear"You are already moving thru space-time at the speed of light. Explained, with diagrams:
http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ (http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/)

What do you mean by already?  :-?  Right! So that means we are moving through time at the speed of light when standing still also does it not ? Solitary

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You know, you would probably be better served of you to just pick up a good university-level textbook on relativity (special or general) and learn the material, rather than than idly speculate about it here.

If you knew who I am you wouldn't be so condescending.

There is no reference frame that goes at the speed of light. The Lorentz transformation collapses at that speed and you cannot give every event in the local environment its own unique coordinates, so there is no physics that can be done in it.

Everything is going at the speed of light through space-time.  

But there's a more subtle reason: a particle cannot possess 0 total energy in any reference frame. Otherwise, they could simply bubble up by the uncountable bajillions out of the vacuum and cause all sorts of havoc. But the photon (and other particles that travel at the speed of light) has no rest mass, so if there were a legal reference frame where a photon doesn't move, then you would have a frame where photons would bubble up out of nothing and swarm the universe — because while the photon would have no energy in its own frame of reference, in others they would, so you would have a severe disagreement between the basic facts of the universe: in the photon's rest frame, the universe would be filled with an infinitely intense photon bath at all times, whereas in any earthly reference frame, intensities are more finite. You're forced to conclude that photons have no reference frame. And conveniently, they mathematically don't: there's no Lorentz transformation for v = c.

So mass-bearing particles have a non-zero rest energy, which is why in some frames you see them at rest. But that means that they always have at least a liiiitle bit more energy than a photon of the same momentum. Consequently, its 4-momentum is always at least a little bit steeper than that of a photon in any reference frame, and thus they must always be slower than light.

And that's the nitty gritty of it. A massive particle is hoisted by its own petard if it wants to go faster than light. If it had no mass at all, then it could ONLY go at the speed of light.

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ (http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/) Watch and learn!

Or maybe you should pick one up and have a teacher explain it to you so you understand what it means. When you talk science you are talking about math and measurement. And why do you think I haven't "studied" the subject and don't understand it just because you disagree with me and the authority of the people I have mentioned that are actual scientists?

Solitary

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "SGOS"

Quote from: "stromboli"Our perception of time is experiential. At a young age we constantly encounter new experiences, so time seems to move at a slower pace. As we age those experiences diminish, so we dismiss them as occurring. In old age you tend to think back of your experiences over long segments of time, rather than as moments- all of which makes time seem to move faster. And as such, you become more aware of its passage in older age.

I heard an interesting explanation for the time acceleration we experience as we grow older:  We can only experience time based on the single reference of our personal experience of our own lifetime, which we might consider to be 1 unit.  From ages 0 to 10, we experience 1 unit.  From ages 10 to 20, we experience 1/2 of a unit.  From 20 to 30, it's a third of a unit, and so it goes for each additional 10 years of our life.

I've pondered this theory some, but I suppose not completely.  There could be a flaw in it, but I think it rather mirrors my personal experience of the phenomenon.

 Show the math or it isn't true.

 :P

Just because something holds true in the world of mathematics or even science doesn't mean it necessarily holds true in reality. Our knowledge of the world is mostly a mental construct. http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ (http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/) Solitary

Quote from: "Colanth"That's how I've always seen it.  To a 1 hour old baby, an hour is a lifetime.  To me, an hour is a minuscule portion of a lifetime.  That, to me, is why time passes faster to an old man than to a very young child, to whom "tomorrow" seems impossibly far in the future.

I remember back to the second or third grade when I could not differentiate the difference in length between the school year and my summer vacation.  Both seemed like never ending experiences that only came and went when my parents decided it was time to go to school, or time for summer.  I can't really remember when I became aware of the difference.

Quote from: "Jesus"Time is subjective, is it not? We have clocks that measure our time, but we also have the inevitability of our aging. We have the internal clocks of our organs, and the ticking of the universe around us.

You are correct. This is the point of relativity: It's talking about mathematics and measurement not what actually happens. One second is just an arbitrary measure of time, it could have been billionths of a second to measure time like it is on some clocks. Almost every thing in physics is based on mathematics and measurement. And as Einstein proved is relative to an observer, what an observer reads on a clock for time, and on a ruler for size, which can be different for different observers. This is what some people at this form don't understand. Time and length measurement are relative in space-time and not absolute. They're still thinking like Newton did that space and time are absolute.  Solitary

Quote from: josephpalazzo

Quote from: Solitary

Quote from: josephpalazzo

Quote from: SolitaryThe rate of the transition outward from the Big Bang, time, is equal to the speed of light. The speed of light is the maximum for all transitions in the universe, including our transition in the time dimension.

Solitary

I'm not sure what you had in mind with this statement and your use of the word "transitions". But for clarification, the universe is not expanding at the speed of light. If you mean by "transitions" - which is very unclear and not the usual technical language in cosmology - "signals"  then it would be correct to say that signals are transmitted at the speed of light

Time doesn't travel at the speed of light but it does tick at different speed for different observers depending on how fast they are moving and how strong the gravitational field they happen to be in


Right! It ticks?  :-?  A clock does mark off time differently under gravity and acceleration, however we are going through space-time at the speed of light, which would mean time is also. http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"Right! It ticks?  :-?  A clock does mark off time differently under gravity and acceleration, however we are going through space-time at the speed of light, which would mean time is also. http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ (http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/) Solitary

Epstein is unknown in physics. He wrote a few books for the layman, but he is not a physicist.

Secondly, if we were traveling at the speed of light, then light wrt us would be standing still. Sorry, but that is pure nonsense.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Solitary"Right! It ticks?  :-?  A clock does mark off time differently under gravity and acceleration, however we are going through space-time at the speed of light, which would mean time is also. http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ (http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/) Solitary

Epstein is unknown in physics. He wrote a few books for the layman, but he is not a physicist.

Secondly, if we were traveling at the speed of light, then light wrt us would be standing still. Sorry, but that is pure nonsense.

I agree, so? I'm talking about time through space-time going the speed of light, not standing still to an observer.

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Solitary"Right! It ticks?  :-?  A clock does mark off time differently under gravity and acceleration, however we are going through space-time at the speed of light, which would mean time is also. http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ (http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/) Solitary

Epstein is unknown in physics. He wrote a few books for the layman, but he is not a physicist.

Secondly, if we were traveling at the speed of light, then light wrt us would be standing still. Sorry, but that is pure nonsense.

I agree, so? I'm talking about time through space-time going the speed of light, not standing still to an observer.

Your words are, "we are going through space-time at the speed of light".

As for time, it doesn't have any speed. If you apply the definition of speed =  distance travelled over time then what is the distance are you measuring for time???

Your words are, "we are going through space-time at the speed of light".

As for time, it doesn't have any speed. If you apply the definition of speed =  distance travelled over time then what is the distance are you measuring for time?

So when something goes the speed of light time doesn't stop on a clock and keeps ticking away at the same speed?   Time doesn't have any speed, then how can it stop on a clock when going the speed of light?  Thanks for your help!
Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"Your words are, "we are going through space-time at the speed of light".

As for time, it doesn't have any speed. If you apply the definition of speed =  distance travelled over time then what is the distance are you measuring for time?

So when something goes the speed of light time doesn't stop on a clock and keeps ticking away at the same speed?   Time doesn't have any speed, then how can it stop on a clock when going the speed of light?  Thanks for your help!
Solitary

You can say that the clock is moving at the speed of light, since you can measure the distance the clock has travelled over the time, which is by definition the speed. But even there, we run into another problem: the clock would have to have zero mass, as only massless particle can travel at the speed of light.

However, time itself has no speed. What would be the speed of time marked by my clock which is at rest???

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Solitary"Your words are, "we are going through space-time at the speed of light".

As for time, it doesn't have any speed. If you apply the definition of speed =  distance travelled over time then what is the distance are you measuring for time?

So when something goes the speed of light time doesn't stop on a clock and keeps ticking away at the same speed?   Time doesn't have any speed, then how can it stop on a clock when going the speed of light?  Thanks for your help!
Solitary

You can say that the clock is moving at the speed of light, since you can measure the distance the clock has travelled over the time, which is by definition the speed. But even there, we run into another problem: the clock would have to have zero mass, as only massless particle can travel at the speed of light.

However, time itself has no speed. What would be the speed of time marked by my clock which is at rest???

I agree, but then how do you know time stops at the speed of light if you can't measure it stopping? Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Solitary"Your words are, "we are going through space-time at the speed of light".

As for time, it doesn't have any speed. If you apply the definition of speed =  distance travelled over time then what is the distance are you measuring for time?

So when something goes the speed of light time doesn't stop on a clock and keeps ticking away at the same speed?   Time doesn't have any speed, then how can it stop on a clock when going the speed of light?  Thanks for your help!
Solitary

You can say that the clock is moving at the speed of light, since you can measure the distance the clock has travelled over the time, which is by definition the speed. But even there, we run into another problem: the clock would have to have zero mass, as only massless particle can travel at the speed of light.

However, time itself has no speed. What would be the speed of time marked by my clock which is at rest???

I agree, but then how do you know time stops at the speed of light if you can't measure it stopping? Solitary

Your question doesn't make sense. Time has no speed so how can anyone stop it? You haven't thought this through: if time would have a speed, what distance would you measure???

Quote from: "Solitary"If you knew who I am you wouldn't be so condescending.

You could be Neil deGrasse Tyson and still deserve to be called out for anything stupid you decided to say, so please quit while you're ahead.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Solitary"If you knew who I am you wouldn't be so condescending.

You could be Neil deGrasse Tyson and still deserve to be called out for anything stupid you decided to say, so please quit while you're ahead.

That's just your opinion unless you can refute what I say with evidence.  I quoted Einstein and you say it is stupid. I think not. I didn't know this forum is so suppose to be a pissing contest by flaming idiots. Wow! You really are a self righteous expert on physics aren't you? Sounds just like a Christian zealot that doesn't know crap about science to me. I wonder why Christians think atheist are know it all pompous asses?  Lul  Find a physics teacher to explain to you why "you" are wrong.  Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Solitary"If you knew who I am you wouldn't be so condescending.

You could be Neil deGrasse Tyson and still deserve to be called out for anything stupid you decided to say, so please quit while you're ahead.

That's just your opinion unless you can refute what I say with evidence.  I quoted Einstein and you say it is stupid. I think not. I didn't know this forum is so suppose to be a pissing contest by flaming idiots. Wow! You really are a self righteous expert on physics aren't you? Sounds just like a Christian zealot that doesn't know crap about science to me. I wonder why Christians think atheist are know it all pompous asses?  Lul  Find a physics teacher to explain to you why "you" are wrong.  Solitary

I wasn't responding to your post, I just think statements like "if you knew who I am, blah blah blah" are silly. :P If what you say is correct, such statements are unnecessary, that's all.

You can say that the clock is moving at the speed of light, since you can measure the distance the clock has travelled over the time, which is by definition the speed. But even there, we run into another problem: the clock would have to have zero mass, as only massless particle can travel at the speed of light.

However, time itself has no speed. What would be the speed of time marked by my clock which is at rest?

I agree, but then how do you know time stops at the speed of light if you can't measure it stopping? Solitary


Your question doesn't make sense. Time has no speed so how can anyone stop it? You haven't thought this through: if time would have a speed, what distance would you measure?


I'm only going by what Einstein said regarding time stopping for an object going the speed of light. Solitary

If you knew who I am you wouldn't be so condescending.
You could be Neil deGrasse Tyson and still deserve to be called out for anything stupid you decided to say, so please quit while you're ahead



That's just your opinion unless you can refute what I say with evidence.  I quoted Einstein and you say it is stupid. I think not. I didn't know this forum is so suppose to be a pissing contest by flaming idiots. Wow! You really are a self righteous expert on physics aren't you? Sounds just like a Christian zealot that doesn't know crap about science to me. I wonder why Christians think atheist are know it all pompous asses?  Lul  Find a physics teacher to explain to you why "you" are wrong.  Solitary

I wasn't responding to your post, I just think statements like "if you knew who I am, blah blah blah" are silly. :P If what you say is correct, such statements are unnecessary, that's all

OK, fair enough, but why don't you respond to my posts as, you say, without making personal attacks on me by saying they are stupid that are also unnecessary if I'm correct and you don't understand what I posted or disagree, making me have to make my post creditable by evoking who I might be? Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"OK, fair enough, but why don't you respond to my posts as, you say, without making personal attacks on me by saying they are stupid that are also unnecessary if I'm correct and you don't understand what I posted or disagree, making me have to make my post creditable by evoking who I might be? Solitary

I was just trying to catch a potential snag in your argument before it came back to bite you. Sheesh, you try to do someone a favor these days...

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"

Quote from: "Solitary"OK, fair enough, but why don't you respond to my posts as, you say, without making personal attacks on me by saying they are stupid that are also unnecessary if I'm correct and you don't understand what I posted or disagree, making me have to make my post creditable by evoking who I might be? Solitary

I was just trying to catch a potential snag in your argument before it came back to bite you. Sheesh, you try to do someone a favor these days...

Yeah, right!  Why does this sound like the guy who said he has a hard time saying he loves us? Your worried about me getting bit and call me stupid at the same time. Makes sense to me. JosephPalazzo is the only one here that knows the subject and has balls enough to admit he was being an ass calling me names. Why, because he does know what he is talking about even if we disagree on some things. Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"Your worried about me getting bit and call me stupid at the same time.

"You could be Neil deGrasse Tyson and still deserve to be called out for anything stupid you decided to say, so please quit while you're ahead."

"anything stupid you decided to say"

In what universe is that the same as saying you're a stupid human being?

Why is this even an argument? I pointed out a potential hole in a statement I otherwise agreed with because, well, it's what I do! Since this clearly offends you, I'll be sure not to do it in the future. Jesus fucking Christ, people these days...

Quoteanything stupid you decided to say

Well, I would think it is when stupid and you are used in regards to a human being in a sentence in any part of the universe. Quit while you are ahead! I never call you stupid when I disagree with you, in fact I have supported you in your arguments.  Look at the Zimmerman posts. Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"I'm only going by what Einstein said regarding time stopping for an object going the speed of light. Solitary

Content is relevant. Einstein said that IF he himself were to be going at the speed of light then time would seem to him to be stopping.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Solitary"I'm only going by what Einstein said regarding time stopping for an object going the speed of light. Solitary

Content is relevant. Einstein said that IF he himself were to be going at the speed of light then time would seem to him to be stopping.

I agree. It would also read this on a clock wouldn't it? I respect your knowledge on the subject, especially your math know how, and the fact when you show me logical evidence unlike others here. Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Solitary"I'm only going by what Einstein said regarding time stopping for an object going the speed of light. Solitary

Content is relevant. Einstein said that IF he himself were to be going at the speed of light then time would seem to him to be stopping.

I agree. It would also read this on a clock wouldn't it? I respect your knowledge on the subject, especially your math know how, and the fact when you show me logical evidence unlike others here. Solitary

Yes, and that's the revolution that Special Relativity brought. Until Einstein, everyone believed that time was absolute and universal. Whether you were moving fast or slow, or you were in a low or high gravity field, all clocks would register the same time. Einstein showed that it isn't so. Depending on your velocity, the clocks in different reference frames will beat at different rates. Later on, he also showed that clocks would be affected by gravity in the General Relativity.

However you are claiming something else: that time travels at the speed of light. You are no longer talking about the speed of a clock, but time itself. This doesn't make sense. How would you measure the speed of time? It's a question I have asked several times, and you haven't answered so far.

I'm only going by what Einstein said regarding time stopping for an object going the speed of light. Solitary

Content is relevant. Einstein said that IF he himself were to be going at the speed of light then time would seem to him to be stopping


I agree. It would also read this on a clock wouldn't it? I respect your knowledge on the subject, especially your math know how, and the fact when you show me logical evidence unlike others here. Solitary

Yes, and that's the revolution that Special Relativity brought. Until Einstein, everyone believed that time was absolute and universal. Whether you were moving fast or slow, or you were in a low or high gravity field, all clocks would register the same time. Einstein showed that it isn't so. Depending on your velocity, the clocks in different reference frames will beat at different rates. Later on, he also showed that clocks would be affected by gravity in the General Relativity.

However you are claiming something else: that time travels at the speed of light. You are no longer talking about the speed of a clock, but time itself. This doesn't make sense. How would you measure the speed of time? It's a question I have asked several times, and you haven't answered so far

That may be so, and it could also be true that a clock stopped at the speed of light would not be a measure of time either then. All I'm going by is that if the three space dimensions are zero, then the time dimension would be the speed of light if the space dimensions added together take away from the time dimension when approaching the speed of light is correct, then if the space dimensions are reduced to zero then it leaves time at the speed of light.

Am I not correct with saying any space dimension can be used as a time dimension and the time and other two space dimensions used as space dimensions also?  I'm being sincere and not trying to yank your chain. Just as you are I'm trying to know the universe and how it works.  Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"That may be so, and it could also be true that a clock stopped at the speed of light would not be a measure of time either then. All I'm going by is that if the three space dimensions are zero, then the time dimension would be the speed of light if the space dimensions added together take away from the time dimension when approaching the speed of light is correct, then if the space dimensions are reduced to zero then it leaves time at the speed of light.

 There would be no time measurement and no distance measurement. From ds[sup:3pffnpes]2[/sup:3pffnpes] = - dt[sup:3pffnpes]2[/sup:3pffnpes] + dx[sup:3pffnpes]2[/sup:3pffnpes] +dy[sup:3pffnpes]2[/sup:3pffnpes] + dz[sup:3pffnpes]2[/sup:3pffnpes], what you would get is ds[sup:3pffnpes]2[/sup:3pffnpes] = 0. In Relativity, this is called a null vector. It represents a ray of light.

QuoteAm I not correct with saying any space dimension can be used as a time dimension and the time and other two space dimensions used as space dimensions also?

If GR is correct then this only can take place in a Black Hole, where the time component reverses sign, and so does the spatial components. So one could claim, and still be logically consistent, that time becomes spatial, and space becomes temporal, but it's really a semantic game.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"

Quote from: "Solitary"That may be so, and it could also be true that a clock stopped at the speed of light would not be a measure of time either then. All I'm going by is that if the three space dimensions are zero, then the time dimension would be the speed of light if the space dimensions added together take away from the time dimension when approaching the speed of light is correct, then if the space dimensions are reduced to zero then it leaves time at the speed of light.

 There would be no time measurement and no distance measurement. From ds[sup:280dylhf]2[/sup:280dylhf] = - dt[sup:280dylhf]2[/sup:280dylhf] + dx[sup:280dylhf]2[/sup:280dylhf] +dy[sup:280dylhf]2[/sup:280dylhf] + dz[sup:280dylhf]2[/sup:280dylhf], what you would get is ds[sup:280dylhf]2[/sup:280dylhf] = 0, or s=0. In Relativity, this is called a null vector. It represents a ray of light.

Am I not correct with saying any space dimension can be used as a time dimension and the time and other two space dimensions used as space dimensions also?  

If GR is correct then this only can take place in a Black Hole, where the time component reverses sign, and so does the spatial components. So one could claim, and still be logically consistent, that time becomes spatial, and space becomes temporal, but it's really a semantic game.


He! He! I agree, like everything else posted on this subject or not. It has been fun with you, I wish I could say the same with others here that can only make Slick Maneuvers with no evidence. Solitary

Quote from: "Solitary"That's just your opinion unless you can refute what I say with evidence.

You don't recognize a logical fallacy when you post it?

"God exists.  Unless you can refute that with evidence it's just your opinion that he doesn't."

Doesn't work for Christians and doesn't work for you.

Quote from: "Solitary"He! He! I agree, like everything else posted on this subject or not. It has been fun with you, I wish I could say the same with others here that can only make Slick Maneuvers with no evidence. Solitary

You have to be careful with what is meant by evidence. For instance if two observers, one on earth and the other moving in a spaceship at near the speed of light, were to communicate, they would both say to each other: "yes, my ruler is one meter long," or "yes, my clock is ticking every second". However, should they meet one day, and say they were twins, the one in the spaceship would return looking younger than the earth-sibling. We would have to conclude that Relativity is right, and they weren't measuring the same length or the same time interval. This happens when we measure the half-life of muons from cosmic rays, which have near speedlight, compared to muons produced in a lab. The cosmic muon "lives" longer than his lab-sibling.

The other effect is for you to live all your life in a skyscraper, way up high reaching over the clouds. Since gravity is weaker there than on the ground, you would age faster, a small price to pay for the gorgeous sight your place up there in the clouds has to offer.  :P

Quote from: "Solitary"If you knew who I am you wouldn't be so condescending.

Well, it's just tough titties for you that I don't, innit? If you ramble on like an old fool, don't be so surprised when you are treated accordingly.

Quotehttp://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ Watch and learn!

Or maybe you should pick one up and have a teacher explain it to you so you understand what it means. When you talk science you are talking about math and measurement. And why do you think I haven't "studied" the subject and don't understand it just because you disagree with me and the authority of the people I have mentioned that are actual scientists?

Hey, man, how about you read your own link more carefully? The interpretation you are presenting is called "Epstein's MYTH." It's an interpretation intending to aid understanding, not a presentation of a serious physical model.

As a matter of fact, I have Epstein's books, and have read them and have understood them, as an aid to visualization.

I know my relativity quite well enough, thank you. I would thank you if you would stop parasitizing off other scientists and try to understand this stuff for yourself.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"

Quote from: "Solitary"If you knew who I am you wouldn't be so condescending.

Well, it's just tough titties for you that I don't, innit? If you ramble on like an old fool, don't be so surprised when you are treated accordingly.

Quotehttp://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/c0_en/c1_en/ Watch and learn!

Or maybe you should pick one up and have a teacher explain it to you so you understand what it means. When you talk science you are talking about math and measurement. And why do you think I haven't "studied" the subject and don't understand it just because you disagree with me and the authority of the people I have mentioned that are actual scientists?

Hey, man, how about you read your own link more carefully? The interpretation you are presenting is called "Epstein's MYTH." It's an interpretation intending to aid understanding, not a presentation of a serious physical model.

As a matter of fact, I have Epstein's books, and have read them and have understood them, as an aid to visualization.

I know my relativity quite well enough, thank you. I would thank you if you would stop parasitizing off other scientists and try to understand this stuff for yourself.

I got it from your post, so who is parasitizing? That was my point for posting it so you would know, and now you let everyone else know you do it. Thanks! Solitary.

Quote from: "Solitary"so who is parasitizing?

Looks like plagiarism (//http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=1473&start=15#p942931) to me.

Quote from: "Solitary"I got it from your post, so who is parasitizing? That was my point for posting it so you would know, and now you let everyone else know you do it. Thanks! Solitary.

I do what? Actually read stuff that's sent my way, so that I may understand what I'm talking about? Epstein had an interesting interpretation of special relativity, but it's still just that — an interpretation. The details are wrong. If you stop with Epstein's Myth, your understanding will be distorted beyond usefulness.

Seriously. Learn the real stuff. It's a lot more interesting.

Bite me! Solitary

No thanks. That's unsanitary.