Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

the speed of light question

Options
1234568

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭standardg60


    The speed of light (or what we measure it to be) is the difference between an infinite speed and the speed at which we are currently expanding. If my belief is correct then that difference will expand, ie. the speed of light will slow, this should be calculable to appease the doubters. Accordingly, the rate of change ie. the passage of time, will also slow, meaning less will happen over a longer period of time.
    This makes sense if we consider Entropy, the formation of galaxies during a time of high transition of infinite speed to lower, ie. the initial releasing of the carriage from the train. As the carriage slows the rate of change of speed, the passage of time, becomes less and less pronounced, an initial period of chaos which naturally settles down into a period of calm.

    Am i on my own here?


  • Options
    #213
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    standardg60 wrote: »
    I am fascinated by light because to me light (and the expansion of it) is to me the only reason for existence. How can 'massless' particles travelling at the speed of light be observed if there's no light to observe them?
    Light isn’t expanding.
    The particles are particles of light.

    The most important for me being the point that the universe exists only as far as our speed of light allows us to see.
    That wasn’t what was said.



    Most of these “theories” you have floated are based if incorrect premises. Like the stationary rubber band end having no tome, energy. Makes absolutely no sense.


  • Options
    #214
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    standardg60 wrote: »
    I am fascinated by light because to me light (and the expansion of it) is to me the only reason for existence.

    It isn't, I'd recommend reading about the Movile Cave for example.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    How can 'massless' particles travelling at the speed of light be observed if there's no light to observe them?

    We don't use light to observe other massless particles, we use other means.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    There may well be a universe that 'exists' without light but because our existence depends on light how could we possibly observe it? That to me is the part of the universe which has ceased to exist.

    Again, this concept of needing to observe things for them to exist is incredibly flawed. By that logic the universe also did not exist before life formed.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    The most important for me being the point that the universe exists only as far as our speed of light allows us to see.

    It doesn't. What you're referring to is the observable universe. According to cosmic inflation theory for example, the universe's size is instead at least 3x10^23 times larger than the observable universe.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    My theory is that we cannot exist unless the universe is expanding further and faster than what we can see. If you believe the universe can exist without light then why not believe it can also exist at a way faster light?

    We know what the expansion speed (or rather, the expansion speed per distance) is, and it's much slower than the speed of light as I stated before. So your theory (and by theory, I mean your shower thought) is incorrect.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    If you believe the universe can exist without light then why not believe it can also exist at a way faster light?

    It can, but it doesn't, and we know this as a fact.
    In order for us to observe time at all there must be an infinite number of universes all expanding at varying speeds of light faster (the past) and slower (the future) than ours, and that we are just travelling along that track.

    No there doesn't, and that doesn't even make sense.
    The speed of light (or what we measure it to be) is the difference between an infinite speed and the speed at which we are currently expanding.

    That makes even less sense.
    If my belief is correct then that difference will expand, ie. the speed of light will slow, this should be calculable to appease the doubters.

    It doesn't. As I mentioned before, data from the Oklo natural reactors for example demonstrate that the speed of light hasn't changed for more than 1.7 billion years.
    This makes sense if we consider Entropy, the formation of galaxies during a time of high transition of infinite speed to lower, ie. the initial releasing of the carriage from the train. As the carriage slows the rate of change of speed, the passage of time, becomes less and less pronounced, an initial period of chaos which naturally settles down into a period of calm.

    Am i on my own here?

    Yes. The reason being is because you are trying to understand an advanced physics topic without having a grasp of basic physics first. I'd recommend having a read of something like Fundamentals of Physics in your spare time. I assure you that if you can grasp the material in that book, you will cringe at your statements in this thread if you then read back over them. ;)


  • Options
    #215
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    standardg60 wrote: »
    The speed of light is the difference between an infinite speed and the speed at which we are currently expanding.

    The difference between an infinite speed and other speed is infinite speed.


  • Options
    #216
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 20,766 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    In theory.

    No. It’s a hard limit, demonstrably

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Not sure but i think infinite speed is a concept based on that the speed of light is finite.

    Infinite speed is more of a concept. I don't know if its possible.

    Its faster than light ...also it might not be relative ..but i don't know that even in theory if its possibly for anything to reach infinite speed

    einstein i THINK comes to the conclusion ..nothing can move faster than the speed of light ..which is finite ...so anything close to infinite speed /velocity ...has to at some point become faster than the speed of light...

    Or else einstein said nothing in the observable universe could do this.

    I don't think in theory even that infinite speed or velocity is possible even for electrons.


    The velocity of light in a vacum is very high. But its lower than infinite velocity.

    So basically the difference between finite speed and infinite speed ..is its faster than light in a vacum.

    And that is impossible according to science now. Not even electrons can move that fast. Finite mass cannot actually travel at infinite speed.


  • Options
    #218
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Not sure but i think infinite speed is a concept based on that the speed of light is finite.

    It isn't.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Infinite speed is more of a concept. I don't know if its possible.

    It isn't.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Its faster than light ...also it might not be relative ..but i don't know that even in theory if its possibly for anything to reach infinite speed

    It isn't.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    einstein i THINK comes to the conclusion ..nothing can move faster than the speed of light ..which is finite ...so anything close to infinite speed /velocity ...has to at some point become faster than the speed of light...

    That statement doesn't even make sense.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    Or else einstein said nothing in the observable universe could do this.

    Nothing in both the observable universe and the rest of the universe can do this.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    I don't think in theory even that infinite speed or velocity is possible even for electrons.

    Electrons cannot even travel at the speed of light let alone an infinite speed as they have mass.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    The velocity of light in a vacum is very high. But its lower than infinite velocity.

    A very astute deduction.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    So basically the difference between finite speed and infinite speed ..is its faster than light in a vacum.

    The difference between a finite speed and an infinite speed is an infinite speed.
    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    And that is impossible according to science now. Not even electrons can move that fast. Finite mass cannot actually travel at infinite speed.

    Electrons cannot even travel at the speed of light let alone an infinite speed as they have mass.


  • Options
    #219
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,162 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    anything to be said for tachyons or quantum entanglement ...?


    ;)


  • Options
    #220
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Yes!
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Tachyons are hypothetical particles with imaginary mass. They don't break relativity by travelling faster than light as they travel backwards in time in the process.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    There is a lot to entangle there (pun intended), but I'll focus on the "spooky" bit you mentioned and leave the rest to others.

    The spooky thing you are referring to is what is known as "spooky action at distance", i.e. quantum entanglement. When two particles that are created are entangled, something known as their "spin" will have opposite values. What these spin values actually are is inherently probabilistic, but if you measure the spin of one of the particles, you then therefore "instantly" know the spin of the other (regardless of the distance between both particles) as they are opposites, which seems to contradict the main premise of relativity, namely that nothing (including information) can travel faster than the speed of light.

    However, this does not violate relativity. You do indeed instantly know what the spin of the second particle is, but this not because information has been transmitted instantaneously. The inherent probability of what the spin of the first particle is "entangled" with the inherent probability of what the spin of the other particle will be. Once the spin of the first particle is measured, the spin of the second particle is then known based on this probability. Information is not transmitted and, most importantly, entanglement cannot be used to intentionally transmit information at a speed greater than the speed of light as it is an inherently probabilistic phenomenon.

    (It's obviously a bit more complicated than that, and I tried my best to not mention anything about a wave function collapsing, but hopefully that will do. :))

    ;)


  • Options
    #221
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It isn't, I'd recommend reading about the Movile Cave for example.



    We don't use light to observe other massless particles, we use other means.



    Again, this concept of needing to observe things for them to exist is incredibly flawed. By that logic the universe also did not exist before life formed.



    It doesn't. What you're referring to is the observable universe. According to cosmic inflation theory for example, the universe's size is instead at least 3x10^23 times larger than the observable universe.



    We know what the expansion speed (or rather, the expansion speed per distance) is, and it's much slower than the speed of light as I stated before. So your theory (and by theory, I mean your shower thought) is incorrect.



    It can, but it doesn't, and we know this as a fact.



    No there doesn't, and that doesn't even make sense.



    That makes even less sense.



    It doesn't. As I mentioned before, data from the Oklo natural reactors for example demonstrate that the speed of light hasn't changed for more than 1.7 billion years.



    Yes. The reason being is because you are trying to understand an advanced physics topic without having a grasp of basic physics first. I'd recommend having a read of something like Fundamentals of Physics in your spare time. I assure you that if you can grasp the material in that book, you will cringe at your statements in this thread if you then read back over them. ;)

    Your reference to the Movile cave means you completely misunderstand my argument. Do you think i think that when i turn my house lights off and sit in the dark there is no time? That is ridiculous.
    What i'm saying is that we would have no existence without a speed of light, that light which causes us to be able to observe anything. If it wasn't there neither would we.
    No one is saying that the universe didn't exist before life formed, everything i have said already means that it must have. You are the one who is being contradictory, stating that the universe could in theory exist at a faster light speed, while stating it can't, but at the same time stating that the universe is far bigger than what can be observed?
    If the universe consisted of a constant speed of light then it would surely be possible to observe it in it's entirety?
    Cringing isn't in my dictionary, you may cringe for me if you like, i couldn't care less. But referring to life in a dark cave to rebut my argument would make me cringe more for you to be honest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Your reference to the Movile cave means you completely misunderstand my argument. Do you think i think that when i turn my house lights off and sit in the dark there is no time? That is ridiculous.

    No, I was replying to your statement that light is the only reason for existence.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    What i'm saying is that we would have no existence without a speed of light, that light which causes us to be able to observe anything. If it wasn't there neither would we.

    If by we you mean humans then yes, we would not be here. If by we you mean the universe then no, the universe would still be here.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    You are the one who is being contradictory, stating that the universe could in theory exist at a faster light speed, while stating it can't, but at the same time stating that the universe is far bigger than what can be observed?

    I stated that nothing within the universe can travel at a speed greater than the speed of light, but that the universe itself can expand at any speed and it has nothing to do with the speed of light nor does it even care that light exists. We know that this expansion rate is about 68km/s per megaparsec (H_0), i.e. that objects 1 megaparsec from us are receding from us at a rate of 68km/s, objects 2 megaparsec from us are receding from us at a rate of 136km/s etc., and objects a distance greater than c/H_0 from us are receding from us at a speed greater than the speed of light. Nothing about that is contradictory.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    If the universe consisted of a constant speed of light then it would surely be possible to observe it in it's entirety?

    No, because as I explained above and many times already, the speed of light has nothing to do with how fast the universe is expanding.
    standardg60 wrote: »
    Cringing isn't in my dictionary, you may cringe for me if you like, i couldn't care less. But referring to life in a dark cave to rebut my argument would make me cringe more for you to be honest.

    This is literally my area of expertise, I would highly recommend absorbing what I am saying if you are truly interested in understanding cosmology. When you make statements like "the speed of light (or what we measure it to be) is the difference between an infinite speed and the speed at which we are currently expanding" it demonstrates that you do not understand basic high school physics (or maths) and will therefore find it impossible to understand a more advanced topic. If you truly want to try to understand the universe and all its wonders, I would highly suggest starting from the bottom and working your way up. :)


  • Options
    #223
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    standardg60 wrote: »
    If the universe consisted of a constant speed of light then it would surely be possible to observe it in it's entirety?

    No it wouldn't. I've no idea why you think that, but it indicates you you are misunderstanding something.

    If a massive explosion happened 1 lightyear away, 1 year ago. We would only see it today. That's a pretty simple concept.

    If a star exploded 1 million light years away, over a 1 million years ago, we can also see it.

    If the universe is X billion years old. We can see stars that were up to X billion light years away from where we area.
    The universe is bigger than X billion light years. Stars beyond that horizon can't be seen.


  • Options
    #224
    jelem
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭jelem


    to "light"en the topic===== It is all relative
    but we as humans are not in possesion of all the
    "points" to which all is relative - we stilll learning.


  • Options
    #225
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    cars cannot travel faster than light , two cars travelling at 100 mph,
    does not make 1 car traveling at 200mph.
    I do not think anything physical can travel faster than light .
    at a certain speed tyres and wheels travelling very fast would burn and melt due to friction and the roads we have on earth are of a limited length ,at least the roads we have that are perfectly straight .
    a car is of no use to anyone if it has not got a firm stable surface to travel on .


  • Options
    #226
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    riclad wrote: »
    cars cannot travel faster than light
    Obviously.
    , two cars travelling at 100 mph, does not make 1 car traveling at 200mph.
    Relative to each other, each is in fact travelling at close to 200mph.
    I do not think anything physical can travel faster than light .
    at a certain speed tyres and wheels travelling very fast would burn and melt due to friction and the roads we have on earth are of a limited length ,at least the roads we have that are perfectly straight .
    Those are not the reasons it's not possible. It was a hypothetical.
    Change cars to spaceships and it still holds true.


  • Options
    #227
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It isn't, I'd recommend reading about the Movile Cave for example.



    We don't use light to observe other massless particles, we use other means.



    Again, this concept of needing to observe things for them to exist is incredibly flawed. By that logic the universe also did not exist before life formed.



    It doesn't. What you're referring to is the observable universe. According to cosmic inflation theory for example, the universe's size is instead at least 3x10^23 times larger than the observable universe.



    We know what the expansion speed (or rather, the expansion speed per distance) is, and it's much slower than the speed of light as I stated before. So your theory (and by theory, I mean your shower thought) is incorrect.



    It can, but it doesn't, and we know this as a fact.



    No there doesn't, and that doesn't even make sense.



    That makes even less sense.



    It doesn't. As I mentioned before, data from the Oklo natural reactors for example demonstrate that the speed of light hasn't changed for more than 1.7 billion years.



    Yes. The reason being is because you are trying to understand an advanced physics topic without having a grasp of basic physics first. I'd recommend having a read of something like Fundamentals of Physics in your spare time. I assure you that if you can grasp the material in that book, you will cringe at your statements in this thread if you then read back over them. ;)
    Deleted User wrote: »
    No, I was replying to your statement that light is the only reason for existence.



    If by we you mean humans then yes, we would not be here. If by we you mean the universe then no, the universe would still be here.



    I stated that nothing within the universe can travel at a speed greater than the speed of light, but that the universe itself can expand at any speed and it has nothing to do with the speed of light nor does it even care that light exists. We know that this expansion rate is about 68km/s per megaparsec (H_0), i.e. that objects 1 megaparsec from us are receding from us at a rate of 68km/s, objects 2 megaparsec from us are receding from us at a rate of 136km/s etc., and objects a distance greater than c/H_0 from us are receding from us at a speed greater than the speed of light. Nothing about that is contradictory.



    No, because as I explained above and many times already, the speed of light has nothing to do with how fast the universe is expanding.



    This is literally my area of expertise, I would highly recommend absorbing what I am saying if you are truly interested in understanding cosmology. When you make statements like "the speed of light (or what we measure it to be) is the difference between an infinite speed and the speed at which we are currently expanding" it demonstrates that you do not understand basic high school physics (or maths) and will therefore find it impossible to understand a more advanced topic. If you truly want to try to understand the universe and all its wonders, I would highly suggest starting from the bottom and working your way up. :)

    Thank you for being respectful with your reply, and i apologise if i seem disrespectful of your expertise.
    I am just trying to answer questions that bother me. I asked a question earlier in the thread as to why we age, and was answered with an explanation as to how we age instead. I know that. It doesn't answer my question.
    May i ask you, what is causing the universe to expand at a speed greater than the speed of light? Why isn't it a greater speed of light? What other force is causing it?
    The concept of greater speeds of light explains why we age. If two cars set off for the same destination at different speeds, not only will the occupants of the slower car have aged more than the first, but what they observe to be reality out of the window will also be different. This is just an expansion of relativity.

    E=mc to the power of two. How can it be squared if c is a constant, if it is a speed above which we cannot exist? This equation makes no allowance for time, it is a calculation which exists statically. As does the second theory, two people passing on trains through a station in opposite directions will observe each other differently depending on their speeds. But both will observe say a different length of grass a mile each side of the station.
    Do you understand where i'm coming from?


  • Options
    #228
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Why isn't it a greater speed of light?
    Because it's not possible to have a greater speed of light. And Even if it were, the speed of light isn't a force and could cause the universe to expand.

    The concept of greater speeds of light explains why we age.
    No it doesn't.
    If two cars set off for the same destination at different speeds, not only will the occupants of the slower car have aged more than the first,
    They would have experience time differently. This is unrelated to humans aging on earth who are all travelling as roughly the same relative speed.
    E=mc to the power of two. How can it be squared if c is a constant, if it is a speed above which we cannot exist?
    There's no reason constants can't be squared. 5 is a constant. 5^2 = 25.
    It's an equation for energy not speed. Just because speeds above c can existing doesn't means numbers above c can't exist.
    This equation makes no allowance for time, it is a calculation which exists statically.
    It doesn't allow for time as time is not a factor in energy.

    As does the second theory, two people passing on trains through a station in opposite directions will observe each other differently depending on their speeds. But both will observe say a different length of grass a mile each side of the station.
    Do you understand where i'm coming from?
    That doesn't seem relevant to anything you can claimed so far.
    You are still messing u basic principles.


  • Options
    #229
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Mellor wrote: »
    Because it's not possible to have a greater speed of light. And Even if it were, the speed of light isn't a force and could cause the universe to expand.



    No it doesn't.


    They would have experience time differently. This is unrelated to humans aging on earth who are all travelling as roughly the same relative speed.


    There's no reason constants can't be squared. 5 is a constant. 5^2 = 25.
    It's an equation for energy not speed. Just because speeds above c can existing doesn't means numbers above c can't exist.


    It doesn't allow for time as time is not a factor in energy.



    That doesn't seem relevant to anything you can claimed so far.
    You are still messing u basic principles.

    Speeds above c can exist then?
    Time must be allowed for, we can't exist without time, and time is the difference in which speeds pass a particular point. What is that speed other than light?
    What is the existence of energy without time? Static energy is nothing, you can call it potential energy but nothing will happen without time.
    If you drive from A to B, the only thing controlling your observation of reality is the speed you travel, the outside world will be completely different for every difference in speed as it occurs independently. Speed is the only thing which gives rise to our concept of time passing in the everyday. Yet even if we stand still time passes around us, we get older, our cells constantly reproduce. Yet we cannot perceive that time, to us we are not moving. But we must be, we must be in a universal car travelling from A to B passing points that a faster car has already passed leading to a passage of time.


  • Options
    #230
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Speeds above c can exist then?

    Where are you getting this from. You aren;t making any sense.
    Time must be allowed for, we can't exist without time
    Time not being allowed for doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    Time isn't in the formula as it isn't a factor in the formula. The same way that any other number of irrelevant factors are omitted .
    and time is the difference in which speeds pass a particular point.
    No it isn't.
    THat;s some nonsense you made up.
    What is the existence of energy without time? Static energy is nothing, you can call it potential energy but nothing will happen without time.
    Time not being in the forumla doesn't suggest time doesn;t exist.
    This is really really basic stuff.
    Speed is the only thing which gives rise to our concept of time passing in the everyday.
    No it isn't. Time still passes when statationary.
    You seem to be mixing up a "difference in perception of time" with "perception of time". That is grossly incorrect.
    Yet even if we stand still time passes around us, we get older, our cells constantly reproduce. Yet we cannot perceive that time, to us we are not moving.
    We can perceive time standing still. Again, that's completely nonsense you've fabricted.
    Time stops at C.
    Time doesn't stop at zero speed. I've no idea where you got that idea. But once we point out that mistake, everything you've claim falls apart s nonsense.
    But we must be, we must be in a universal car travelling from A to B passing points that a faster car has already passed leading to a passage of time.
    Nope.


  • Options
    #231
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭standardg60


    We can perceive time standing still. Again, that's completely nonsense you've fabricted.
    Time stops at C.
    Time doesn't stop at zero speed. I've no idea where you got that idea. But once we point out that mistake, everything you've claim falls apart s nonsense.

    This is essentially the nub of the argument. You argue that we in car C that remained stationary at the point of departure are measuring the speed of car a and coming up with c. I argue that we are in car b and are measuring the difference between ourselves and car a.

    If we were in car C and looked out the window nothing would change, why would it, it's stationary. If that is indeed a mistake then yes you're right my whole claim is nonsense. Just explain why we age if we're just sitting here at zero speed please.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Mellor
    Registered Users Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    standardg60 wrote: »
    You argue that we in car C that remained stationary at the point of departure are measuring the speed of car a and coming up with c. I argue that we are in car b and are measuring the difference between ourselves and car a.
    I'm saying for the people who are stationary, time doesn't stop, ever.

    If we were in car C and looked out the window nothing would change, why would it, it's stationary. If that is indeed a mistake then yes you're right my whole claim is nonsense.
    People inside the car are not stationary. Time stops at C.
    At zero speed, time is normal.
    Just explain why we age if we're just sitting here at zero speed please.
    Because at zero speed. We experience time. Our cells degrade over time. I'm not sure why that is confusing.


  • Options
    #233
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    standardg60 wrote: »
    E=mc to the power of two. How can it be squared if c is a constant, if it is a speed above which we cannot exist?

    https://media.tenor.com/images/d98fb140b599d08e5a4968564306cd64/tenor.gif


  • Options
    #234
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    There was a young fellow called White
    Whose speed was much faster than light.
    He went out one day
    In a relative way
    And returned the previous night.


  • Options
    #235
    Nexytus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 154 ✭✭Nexytus


    Mellor wrote: »
    Because at zero speed. We experience time. Our cells degrade over time. I'm not sure why that is confusing.

    He seems to be saying with regard to space time that if the three co-ordinates of space are 0,0,0 then linear time will not proceed (or not exist?) And only changes in spatial position creates time.

    He's not referencing anything to support the contention.


  • Options
    #236
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    feargale wrote: »
    There was a young fellow called White
    Whose speed was much faster than light.
    He went out one day
    In a relative way
    And returned the previous night.

    I think we should introduce White to my friend Bright! :pac:


  • Options
    #237
    AdrianBalboa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 475 ✭✭AdrianBalboa


    I tell you what can go faster than the speed of light: my hubby getting out of taking the bins out!!!


  • Options
    #238
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Nexytus wrote: »
    He seems to be saying with regard to space time that if the three co-ordinates of space are 0,0,0 then linear time will not proceed (or not exist?) And only changes in spatial position creates time.

    He's not referencing anything to support the contention.

    Thank you, that's exactly what I'm saying.
    If you are at those coordinates you cannot exist.
    You must be moving in order to observe and experience time. Time itself is movement.

    How can I reference anything if no-one else has referred to it yet?


  • Options
    #239
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,162 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    You must be moving in order to observe and experience time

    You are moving, through space-time. Specifically the time dimension, if you are not moving in space.

    Everything moves through space-time at the 'speed of light', this is constant, and conserved. So that the faster something is moving through spatial dimensions, the slower they move through the time dimension

    (or that's my understanding of it anyway)


  • Options
    #240
    standardg60
    Registered Users Posts: 4,240 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Mellor wrote: »
    I'm saying for the people who are stationary, time doesn't stop, ever.



    People inside the car are not stationary. Time stops at C.
    At zero speed, time is normal.

    Because at zero speed. We experience time. Our cells degrade over time. I'm not sure why that is confusing.

    Einstein looked at the clock, then imagined travelling on that instant image of the clock travelling towards him whereby the time it conveyed wouldn't change. Fine.

    The image of the clockface travelled from the clock to him. If the image never left the clock (zero speed), he would never observe the time in the first place.
    I'm not sure why that is confusing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    standardg60 wrote: »
    Thank you, that's exactly what I'm saying.
    If you are at those coordinates you cannot exist.
    You must be moving in order to observe and experience time. Time itself is movement.

    How can I reference anything if no-one else has referred to it yet?

    If that is exactly what you are saying then you are incorrect. Changes in position do not create time, for the same reason that movement in vertical space does not create horizontal space. Each are a separate dimension independent of each other, all part of spacetime. Time itself is not spatial movement. You are not moving through space if you are standing still, but you are moving through spacetime.

    And what you are saying about the rate of time when standing still is completely the opposite of what is actually true, as Quantum Erasure correctly described. If you are standing still, time is moving at a maximum rate rather than not existing as you suggest. It's instead particles that move at the speed of light that do not experience time. If everything in the universe was moving at the speed of light, then you could (incorrectly) argue the idea that time does not exist, but certainly not in the opposite sense when there is no motion.

    An object at rest is moving through spacetime only in the time dimension, and a massless particle is moving through spacetime only in the space dimensions.


Advertisement