Daecon Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I finally figured out why faster-than-light speed travel isn't possible. Go me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 What's your point -- like well done n its all good -- but what's the point in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 *ahem* It was suposed to be a prompt for the next poster to say something like: "Yeah? Go on then..." It all has to do with the fact that matter already travels through time at the speed of light so to move in space you have to take some of that constant away from moving through time. As a result, you can't move faster than you're already travelling, ie: travelling faster through space than you can travel through time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Hmmmm, that's different from the standard reason! You can't put a ruler against the 4th dimension (time) and compare it to the speed of light. The 4th dimension is measured in terms of seconds - not meters per second or however you want to measure c. I can travel at x speed along the y axis and 2x speed along the x axis. Similarly I can travel at different speeds along the 3rd and 4th dimension. I don't really understand your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 Hmmmm' date=' that's different from the standard reason! You can't put a ruler against the 4th dimension (time) and compare it to the speed of light. The 4th dimension is measured in terms of seconds - not meters per second or however you want to measure c. [/quote'] I'm saying that if light travels at c then time also travels moves forward at a constant speed denoted by c - therefore matter also moves *through time* at the same rate, (c). By the way - which "standard reason" are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 velocity is a vector. the resultant velocity of all four dimensions is always c. i think that is what he was getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I'm saying that if light travels at c then time also travels moves forward at a constant speed denoted by c - therefore matter also moves *through time* at the same rate, ©. Speed or motion is space over time. You can not tell time have a speed. Time is a component of speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 Time does have a speed - the speed in which it passes for the universe! Space is about length, not just distance - and time is about speed, not just duration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Time does have a speed What is the unit of time ? I can accept something like "Time progress" or thing like that, but by definition time does have a speed . Time is only a component of speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted April 22, 2005 Author Share Posted April 22, 2005 What is the unit of time ? I dunno. The Planck duration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 if time doesn't have a speed, then how can it slow for an observer in motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 if time doesn't have a speed, then how can it slow for an observer in motion? It is just a scale factor without unit. Length is also contracted but you don't conclude that lenght have a speed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 The Planck duration It is a unit of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losfomot Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 *ahem* It was suposed to be a prompt for the next poster to say something like: "Yeah? Go on then..." It all has to do with the fact that matter already travels through time at the speed of light so to move in space you have to take some of that constant away from moving through time. As a result' date=' you can't move faster than you're already travelling, ie: travelling faster through space than you can travel through time.[/quote'] What I got out of this actually sort of makes sense... at first. What Transdecimal is saying (I think) is that time is moving at aprox. 300,000 km/s. So any speed that matter attains in space must be subtracted from the 300,000 km/s that time is travelling. So, once an object reaches the unattainable speed of 300,000 km/s through space, time has been stopped, and you cannot go any faster. And why would you need to? you would cross the universe in zero time. Which is what relativity says would happen as well. The problem is that, if it really worked that way, time dilation would increase at the same rate that your speed increased. If you reached 150,000 km/s, time should be running at half speed (relative to a stationary observer, of course), but in GR that isn't the case ( I don't think ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 OK, I really don't get this. Time is moving at c relative to what? Time is not a physical object which can move a x meters per second. How can time move at a speed per unit time? It just really doesn't make sense to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 This sounds like an offshoot of the spacetime interval explanation (the position four-vector multiplied by itself, which is invariant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 What I got out of this actually sort of makes sense... at first. What Transdecimal is saying (I think) is that time is moving at aprox. 300' date='000 km/s. So any speed that matter attains in space must be subtracted from the 300,000 km/s that time is travelling. So, once an object reaches the unattainable speed of 300,000 km/s through space, time has been stopped, and you cannot go any faster. And why would you need to? you would cross the universe in zero time. Which is what relativity says would happen as well. The problem is that, if it really worked that way, time dilation would increase at the same rate that your speed increased. [b']If you reached 150,000 km/s, time should be running at half speed (relative to a stationary observer, of course), but in GR that isn't the case ( I don't think [/b] ). Your right, it isn't the case in GR or SR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 This sounds like an offshoot of the spacetime interval explanation (the position four-vector multiplied by itself, which is invariant). that is what i was trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geistkiesel Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 *ahem* It was suposed to be a prompt for the next poster to say something like: "Yeah? Go on then..." It all has to do with the fact that matter already travels through time at the speed of light so to move in space you have to take some of that constant away from moving through time. As a result' date=' you can't move faster than you're already travelling, ie: travelling faster through space than you can travel through time.[/quote'] How can your statement that matter travels through time at the speed of light have any physical meaning? Velocity is still defined as dx/dt is it not? So what is "travel in time" have to do with an object moving through space at the speed of light, or greater, or less than the speed of light? Educate me on this one will you please? It seems like a science fiction statement. I do not see what you are trrying to say rationally, that is. Geistkiesel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geistkiesel Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Time does have a speed - the speed in which it passes for the universe! Space is about length' date=' not just distance - and time is about speed, not just duration.[/quote'] Length and distance are equivalent phrases, as is time and duration. What are you trying to say here? What is the definition of the speed of time? and how does this relate to the normal dx/dt speed? Geistkiesel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted May 9, 2005 Author Share Posted May 9, 2005 You have to regard space and time as different manifestations of the same thing. Think of time as a dimension at a right angle to the other 3 spacial ones, you move forward in time although you remain stationary in space. Does that help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geistkiesel Posted May 14, 2005 Share Posted May 14, 2005 You have to regard space and time as different manifestations of the same thing. Think of time as a dimension at a right angle to the other 3 spacial ones' date=' you move forward in time although you remain stationary in space. Does that help?[/quote'] No it doesn't help. A right angle is an aspect of space. I can see spatial right angles clear enough. I am capable of understanding "orthogonality" in various physical spaces described mathematically, however the mathematics is a mere covention contrived to get answers where the knowledge of the phyiscs of a situation is unknown. I see you as hard pressed to offer a physical description of time that is not ambiguously tied to space. As I follow this thread I see no obvious reason why you could not have compared temperature, as an example, with space in the same way you attempt to tie time and space. Relating time and space as you do obfuscates the discussion on the physical nature of the attributes described arbitrarily. Did you state earlier that objects move at the speed of light? I just do not observe this thread as having any value in the scrutiny of the physical universe when the reality is defintionally hidden in obscure and incomplete mathematical references. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted May 26, 2005 Author Share Posted May 26, 2005 Have you not heard of the phrase "spacetime continuum" or of Einstein's Theories? I think you're just looking for a reason to be argumentative... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now