How Fast Are You Moving Through Time?

[Solitary]

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/ 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

[Solitary]

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/ Solitary

[SGOS]

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.

[Solitary]

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

[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

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

[josephpalazzo]

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

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.

[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/ 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.

[josephpalazzo]

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

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???

[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

[josephpalazzo]

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???

[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

[josephpalazzo]

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???

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.

[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

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.