How Fast Are You Moving Through Time?

[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?


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

[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

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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...

[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

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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...

[Solitary]

anything 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

[josephpalazzo]

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.

[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

[josephpalazzo]

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.

[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

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

[josephpalazzo]

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.

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.

[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

[Colanth]

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.

[josephpalazzo]

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

[Hakurei Reimu]

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.

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?

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.