*beams*

[Daecon]

I finally figured out why faster-than-light speed travel isn't possible.

 

Go me.

 

[5614]

 

What's your point -- like well done n its all good -- but what's the point in this thread?

[Daecon]

*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.

[5614]

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.

[Daecon]

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?

[ydoaPs]

velocity is a vector. the resultant velocity of all four dimensions is always c. i think that is what he was getting at.

[Jacques]

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.

[Daecon]

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.

[Jacques]

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.

[Daecon]

What is the unit of time ?

 

I dunno. The Planck duration?

[ydoaPs]

if time doesn't have a speed, then how can it slow for an observer in motion?

[Jacques]

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...

[Jacques]

The Planck duration

It is a unit of time.

[losfomot]

*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 ).

[5614]

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!

[swansont]

This sounds like an offshoot of the spacetime interval explanation (the position four-vector multiplied by itself, which is invariant).

[J.C.MacSwell]

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.

[ydoaPs]

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.

[geistkiesel]

*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

[geistkiesel]

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

[Daecon]

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?

[geistkiesel]

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.

[Daecon]

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...