t'="ΔT" /√(1-v^2/c^2 )
L'=L√(1-v^2/c^2 )
Substituting time dilation into length contraction gives:
〖L'〗^2*〖t'〗^2= L^2* 〖Δt〗^2
〖L'〗^2×〖t'〗^2= L^2× 〖Δt〗^2
But those formulas aren't fundamental, but derived from Lorentz transforms in different special circumstances. Therefore your equations do not hold in general.
The Lorentz transforms for a relative motion of inertial frames of v in the direction of x are:
Δt' = (Δt - (v/c²)Δx)/√(1 - v²/c²)
Δx' = (Δx - vΔt)/√(1 - v²/c²)
Δy' = Δy
Δz' = Δz
So time dilation follows naturally when v ≠ 0 and for any two events (points in four-space) Δx = 0.
But length contraction requires an extended object, and takes advantage of an apples and oranges type comparison. Because the length of the object is defined Δx between any two events at the ends of the object when Δt = 0. But length in the "other" frame is defined between events where Δt' = 0 and these are necessarily not both the same as the first two events when v ≠ 0.
Consequently your equation holds for objects of zero length, or time intervals of zero, or velocities of zero, so is not fundamental at all.
// edit: Solving, for events, I have Δt' Δx' = Δt Δx when v((cΔt)² - 2vΔtΔx + (Δx)²) = 0 such that when v = 0, or when Δx = Δt(v±√(v²-c²)) which has physical solutions only when Δx = Δt = 0. So perhaps I should have said: "for objects of zero length, and time intervals of zero, or velocities of zero,"
The Lorentz transforms for a relative motion of inertial frames of v in the direction of x are:
Δt' = (Δt - (v/c²)Δx)/√(1 - v²/c²)
Δx' = (Δx - vΔt)/√(1 - v²/c²)
Δy' = Δy
Δz' = Δz
So time dilation follows naturally when v ≠ 0 and for any two events (points in four-space) Δx = 0.
But length contraction requires an extended object, and takes advantage of an apples and oranges type comparison. Because the length of the object is defined Δx between any two events at the ends of the object when Δt = 0. But length in the "other" frame is defined between events where Δt' = 0 and these are necessarily not both the same as the first two events when v ≠ 0.
Consequently your equation holds for objects of zero length, or time intervals of zero, or velocities of zero, so is not fundamental at all.
// edit: Solving, for events, I have Δt' Δx' = Δt Δx when v((cΔt)² - 2vΔtΔx + (Δx)²) = 0 such that when v = 0, or when Δx = Δt(v±√(v²-c²)) which has physical solutions only when Δx = Δt = 0. So perhaps I should have said: "for objects of zero length, and time intervals of zero, or velocities of zero,"
I think time dilation in space results in a distance contraction in time and a length contraction in space results in a length extension in time to conserve proper time and length.
Well, then you are wrong.
What is conserved in special relativity between any two events is the "interval" = (cΔt)² - (Δx)² - (Δy)² - (Δz)²
This quantity, plus, minus or zero is conserved.
Calling something "proper" is a self-referential statement which just means it is possible to calculate for simple situations the "proper length."
What is conserved in special relativity between any two events is the "interval" = (cΔt)² - (Δx)² - (Δy)² - (Δz)²
This quantity, plus, minus or zero is conserved.
Calling something "proper" is a self-referential statement which just means it is possible to calculate for simple situations the "proper length."
Well I think proper length of an object is its object when its speed through time is maximum and 0 through space i.e. when it is at rest in space. Also, an increase in the speed through time results in a decrease in length in time due to which the length comes to existence in space at maximum speed through time. Therefore, at maximum speed through space would result in the length coming into existence in time.
Pointless, since length of objects can change over time and relativity of simultaneity means it's a fools errand trying to make observers clocks match over extended spaces.
You haven't made a case for your hypothesis, and it is trivial to find counter examples.
You haven't made a case for your hypothesis, and it is trivial to find counter examples.
At the speed of light distance would pass by us at the same speed time passes by us when we are at rest, wouldn't it?
No, draw a 2d space-time diagram and consider how a worldline for a stationary object (relative to your coordinate frame) would transform under the t <--> x exchange. It's not as you say.
Might I suggest learning some relativity before shooting your mouth off?
Might I suggest learning some relativity before shooting your mouth off?
I haven't studied relativity. I'm only an O Level student.
Now if it wouldn't then why is time dilation infinite at the speed of light.
Would going beyond the speed of light cause one to age backwards?
Is the speed of a body through time the inverse of its speed through time?
e.g: When a body travels at 10 m/s 0.1 seconds pass by it per metre of its travelling.
Now if it wouldn't then why is time dilation infinite at the speed of light.
Would going beyond the speed of light cause one to age backwards?
Is the speed of a body through time the inverse of its speed through time?
e.g: When a body travels at 10 m/s 0.1 seconds pass by it per metre of its travelling.
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 6 2009, 06:42 PM)
Now if it wouldn't then why is time dilation infinite at the speed of light.
Because you're mixing up who sees what.
An object at rest is at constant x and changing t. Therefore moving through space as it does time would mean moving with constant t and changing x. The speed of light is moving through time and space in equal amounts.
There are 3 different space-time trajectories, time-like (a person at rest), null (light), space-like (faster than light). You're getting null and space-like confused.
Because you're mixing up who sees what.
An object at rest is at constant x and changing t. Therefore moving through space as it does time would mean moving with constant t and changing x. The speed of light is moving through time and space in equal amounts.
There are 3 different space-time trajectories, time-like (a person at rest), null (light), space-like (faster than light). You're getting null and space-like confused.
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 6 2009, 06:42 PM)
I haven't studied relativity. I'm only an O Level student.
And yet you start a thread proclaiming relativity wrong. Hardly the most logical of methods is it?
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 6 2009, 05:42 PM)
I haven't studied relativity. I'm only an O Level student.
1. Now if it wouldn't then why is time dilation infinite at the speed of light.
2. Would going beyond the speed of light cause one to age backwards?
3. Is the speed of a body through time the inverse of its speed through time?
e.g: When a body travels at 10 m/s 0.1 seconds pass by it per metre of its travelling.
1. t = 0 @ c because of Lorentz transformation.
2. No.
3. Nonesense.
p.s; what's the O Level in ....... Ghastly Drooling Cretinisms?
1. Now if it wouldn't then why is time dilation infinite at the speed of light.
2. Would going beyond the speed of light cause one to age backwards?
3. Is the speed of a body through time the inverse of its speed through time?
e.g: When a body travels at 10 m/s 0.1 seconds pass by it per metre of its travelling.
1. t = 0 @ c because of Lorentz transformation.
2. No.
3. Nonesense.
p.s; what's the O Level in ....... Ghastly Drooling Cretinisms?
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Nov 6 2009, 05:55 PM)
1. t = 0 @ c because of Lorentz transformation.
To expand upon this point, we know it's not possible to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light because of the singularity in the Lorentz transformation equations. If you look at the formula for relativistic kinetic energy you'll find that it diverges for v = c. In other words, an object with non zero mass would have to have infinite kinetic energy to travel at c. This is obviously not possible.
If it were possible to travel faster than light (it isn't) then you would be travelling backwards in time. What that means is fairly esoteric because it isn't possible.
To expand upon this point, we know it's not possible to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light because of the singularity in the Lorentz transformation equations. If you look at the formula for relativistic kinetic energy you'll find that it diverges for v = c. In other words, an object with non zero mass would have to have infinite kinetic energy to travel at c. This is obviously not possible.
If it were possible to travel faster than light (it isn't) then you would be travelling backwards in time. What that means is fairly esoteric because it isn't possible.
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Nov 6 2009, 05:55 PM)
1. t = 0 @ c because of Lorentz transformation.
2. No.
3. Nonesense.
p.s; what's the O Level in ....... Ghastly Drooling Cretinisms?
2. prometheus says yes.
3. Why?
2. No.
3. Nonesense.
p.s; what's the O Level in ....... Ghastly Drooling Cretinisms?
2. prometheus says yes.
3. Why?
If an object at rest were to be decelerated would an observer at rest observe its clock to tick faster than its own clock?. Would its mass decrease? If not, why?
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 08:29 AM)
2. prometheus says yes.
3. Why?
Point 2: 1stly, prometheus has stated matter cannot exceed c, which for even the most ill eductated, is realized as common fact. If c were in some way bettered (some kooky flight of fantasy) t then becomes of negative, although inside this frame you'd still age as normal. In short, prometheus said nothing of the sort, you total slavering imbecile.
Point 3: As this question was eminently shocking ill-grammatic baloney.
3. Why?
Point 2: 1stly, prometheus has stated matter cannot exceed c, which for even the most ill eductated, is realized as common fact. If c were in some way bettered (some kooky flight of fantasy) t then becomes of negative, although inside this frame you'd still age as normal. In short, prometheus said nothing of the sort, you total slavering imbecile.
Point 3: As this question was eminently shocking ill-grammatic baloney.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 6 2009, 10:17 PM)
To expand upon this point, we know it's not possible to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light because of the singularity in the Lorentz transformation equations. If you look at the formula for relativistic kinetic energy you'll find that it diverges for v = c. In other words, an object with non zero mass would have to have infinite kinetic energy to travel at c. This is obviously not possible.
If it were possible to travel faster than light (it isn't) then you would be travelling backwards in time. What that means is fairly esoteric because it isn't possible.
If it were possible to travel faster than light (it isn't) then you would be travelling backwards in time. What that means is fairly esoteric because it isn't possible.[B][I][U]
At the speed of light we stop ageing relative to an observer at rest. So why when travelling beyond the speed of light we wouldn't age backwards relative to an observer at rest.
As this question was eminently shocking ill-grammatic baloney.
You do not answer my question.[B][U]
If it were possible to travel faster than light (it isn't) then you would be travelling backwards in time. What that means is fairly esoteric because it isn't possible.
If it were possible to travel faster than light (it isn't) then you would be travelling backwards in time. What that means is fairly esoteric because it isn't possible.[B][I][U]
At the speed of light we stop ageing relative to an observer at rest. So why when travelling beyond the speed of light we wouldn't age backwards relative to an observer at rest.
As this question was eminently shocking ill-grammatic baloney.
You do not answer my question.[B][U]
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 09:43 AM)
At the speed of light we stop ageing relative to an observer at rest. So why when travelling beyond the speed of light we wouldn't age backwards relative to an observer at rest.
Dearest drooling retard, your original question was: "Would going beyond the speed of light cause one to age backwards?".
Dearest drooling retard, your original question was: "Would going beyond the speed of light cause one to age backwards?".
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Nov 7 2009, 09:52 AM)
Dearest drooling retard, your original question was: "Would going beyond the speed of light cause one to age backwards?".
Travelling back in time does result in ageing backward.
Travelling back in time does result in ageing backward.
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 09:55 AM)
Travelling back in time does result in ageing backward.
No, no, no! you exasperating fuckwit!
No, no, no! you exasperating fuckwit!
1 It would relative to an observer at rest.
2 If an object at rest were to be decelerated would an observer at rest observe its clock to tick faster than its own clock?. Would its mass decrease? If not, why?
2 If an object at rest were to be decelerated would an observer at rest observe its clock to tick faster than its own clock?. Would its mass decrease? If not, why?
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 10:06 AM)
1 It would relative to an observer at rest.
2 If an object at rest were to be decelerated would an observer at rest observe its clock to tick faster than its own clock?. Would its mass decrease? If not, why?
1. Yes.
2. "If an object at rest were to be decelerated" .... this is a prime example of your harrowingly pathetic balderdash.
2 If an object at rest were to be decelerated would an observer at rest observe its clock to tick faster than its own clock?. Would its mass decrease? If not, why?
1. Yes.
2. "If an object at rest were to be decelerated" .... this is a prime example of your harrowingly pathetic balderdash.
QUOTE (Dr Fred A Wolf+Nov 7 2009, 10:14 AM)
1. Yes.
2. "If an object at rest were to be decelerated" .... this is a prime example of your harrowingly pathetic balderdash.
This concept is beyond your comprehension.
2. "If an object at rest were to be decelerated" .... this is a prime example of your harrowingly pathetic balderdash.
This concept is beyond your comprehension.
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 10:21 AM)
This concept is beyond your comprehension.
I concur, as I'm not an insane saliva gushing cretin like you!
I concur, as I'm not an insane saliva gushing cretin like you!
Decelerating a massive object at rest is similar to accelerating a massless object beyond the speed of light.
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 12:22 PM)
Decelerating a massive object at rest is similar to accelerating a massless object beyond the speed of light.
I find it odd that, despite you admitting you haven't studied relativity and you having already been shown to be wrong on your claims about relativity, you still cling to the notion you're guesses are somehow superior to people who actually know or do relativity.
A massless object is, by definition, moving at the speed of light. If you make it move faster than light, by some mechanism, then you induce a tachyonic mass for the object.
I am wondering whether KE approaching infinity cannot be conceptualized as the tendency for matter to dilate into pure space. If you look at KE as the tendency of energy to propel particles ever further from one another in space and time, then logically the unattainable ultimate limit would be absolute distance and time between particle contact, which would be impossible in a situation in which the particles have any potential to reach one another. So matter and space don't exist independently of one another then, is the conclusion I am drawing.
Since I have been playing with my crank theory of light as gravity waves today, I am wondering if light itself, rather than time travel, would be a better candidate for positing as the product of surplus energy in space. In other words, as matter approaches the speed of light, it increases in energy which may be eventually transfered into interference in the fabric of space-time itself. In other words, matter within a certain context of space-time dilation may have a maximum amount of energy it can accommodate as motion. Subsequently, any energy applied in excess of the motion limit would spill over into space-time deforming energy, which would appear as gravity waves and or light or other EM radiation.
Am I taking my new organ-grinder monkey show idea around to too many venues already?
I am wondering whether KE approaching infinity cannot be conceptualized as the tendency for matter to dilate into pure space. ...
... In other words, as matter approaches the speed of light, it increases in energy which may be eventually transfered into interference in the fabric of space-time itself. In other words, matter within a certain context of space-time dilation may have a maximum amount of energy it can accommodate as motion. Subsequently, any energy applied in excess of the motion limit would spill over into space-time deforming energy, which would appear as gravity waves and or light or other EM radiation.
Actually, according to SR any 'excess energy" spills over and appears as 'relativistic kinetic energy' as a result of relativistic mass. Whether that 'excess' "spills over" into space or not, it would still show up as increased resistance to acceleration...which is exactly what we call relativistic mass.
In fact the origin of inertial mass (relativistic or otherwise) has not yet been definitively determined to be intrinsic to the matter itself, and may very well be EXtrinsic, being a function of the surrounding space itself.
See here for example ( 5th box down) of the standard formulation...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...tiv/releng.html
Lunar
I find it odd that, despite you admitting you haven't studied relativity and you having already been shown to be wrong on your claims about relativity, you still cling to the notion you're guesses are somehow superior to people who actually know or do relativity.
A massless object is, by definition, moving at the speed of light. If you make it move faster than light, by some mechanism, then you induce a tachyonic mass for the object.
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 12:22 PM)
This concept is beyond your comprehension.
No, the fact you are saying something incorrect doesn't mean its beyond our comprehension. Speed is a scalar quantity, it is the absolute value of velocity. As such it cannot be less than zero. If an object is at rest in a particular frame then any force applied to it will increase its speed. It can have negative velocity but that is simply an artifact of velocities being vectors.
Not only are you making suppositions about a theory you know nothing about (by your own admission) but you're also failing to show you know even high school mathematics. Speed being a scalar non-negative quantity is something even 15 year olds should know.
Not only are you making suppositions about a theory you know nothing about (by your own admission) but you're also failing to show you know even high school mathematics. Speed being a scalar non-negative quantity is something even 15 year olds should know.
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 11:22 AM)
Decelerating a massive object at rest is similar to accelerating a massless object beyond the speed of light.
("fucktard" .... mumble .... "brainwanked shockjob" and several other grunts of barely audible abuse).
("fucktard" .... mumble .... "brainwanked shockjob" and several other grunts of barely audible abuse).
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 7 2009, 02:42 PM)
I find it odd that, despite you admitting you haven't studied relativity and you having already been shown to be wrong on your claims about relativity, you still cling to the notion you're guesses are somehow superior to people who actually know or do relativity.
A massless object is, by definition, moving at the speed of light. If you make it move faster than light, by some mechanism, then you induce a tachyonic mass for the object.
No, the fact you are saying something incorrect doesn't mean its beyond our comprehension. Speed is a scalar quantity, it is the absolute value of velocity. As such it cannot be less than zero. If an object is at rest in a particular frame then any force applied to it will increase its speed. It can have negative velocity but that is simply an artifact of velocities being vectors.
Not only are you making suppositions about a theory you know nothing about (by your own admission) but you're also failing to show you know even high school mathematics. Speed being a scalar non-negative quantity is something even 15 year olds should know.
Not only are you making suppositions about a theory you know nothing about (by your own admission) but you're also failing to show you know even high school mathematics. Speed being a scalar non-negative quantity is something even 15 year olds should know.
Even time is a scalar quantity but going beyond the speed of light allows passing through negative time then why is imaginary speed not possible
A massless object is, by definition, moving at the speed of light. If you make it move faster than light, by some mechanism, then you induce a tachyonic mass for the object.
No, the fact you are saying something incorrect doesn't mean its beyond our comprehension. Speed is a scalar quantity, it is the absolute value of velocity. As such it cannot be less than zero. If an object is at rest in a particular frame then any force applied to it will increase its speed. It can have negative velocity but that is simply an artifact of velocities being vectors.
Not only are you making suppositions about a theory you know nothing about (by your own admission) but you're also failing to show you know even high school mathematics. Speed being a scalar non-negative quantity is something even 15 year olds should know.
Not only are you making suppositions about a theory you know nothing about (by your own admission) but you're also failing to show you know even high school mathematics. Speed being a scalar non-negative quantity is something even 15 year olds should know.
Even time is a scalar quantity but going beyond the speed of light allows passing through negative time then why is imaginary speed not possible
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 04:21 PM)
Even time is a scalar quantity but going beyond the speed of light allows passing through negative time then why is imaginary speed not possible
Go faster than light doesn't quite mean you travel back in time. What it means is that casuality is broken. Lorentz transformations are such that if Person A sees event 1 happen before event 2 then Person B will always see event 1 happen before event 2. The time between the events or when they see those events can be different but the order is unchanged. If something in a system is going faster than light then it means two people might disagree with one another in terms of what the order of events are. Person A might seem Event 1 trigger Event 2 but person B might see Event 2 happen before event 1 causes it. A violation of causality. But this is not the same as travelling back in time.
Suppose you are in a race and you're on the starting blocks. You hear the gun and you jump to twice the speed of light. You'll get to the end of the race fast enough to be able to turn around and see yourself start. BUT there is no way you can move such that you end up back at the start of the track before you left.
Again, this can all be seen by drawing space-time diagrams and considering trajectories which have gradient less than 1 in the (x,ct) formulation (ie ct is the y coordinate). You can get to places where you're able to observe an earlier version of yourself from afar but no matter what you do if you try to run over and meet yourself you'll always find you're not there any more when you get there.
Go faster than light doesn't quite mean you travel back in time. What it means is that casuality is broken. Lorentz transformations are such that if Person A sees event 1 happen before event 2 then Person B will always see event 1 happen before event 2. The time between the events or when they see those events can be different but the order is unchanged. If something in a system is going faster than light then it means two people might disagree with one another in terms of what the order of events are. Person A might seem Event 1 trigger Event 2 but person B might see Event 2 happen before event 1 causes it. A violation of causality. But this is not the same as travelling back in time.
Suppose you are in a race and you're on the starting blocks. You hear the gun and you jump to twice the speed of light. You'll get to the end of the race fast enough to be able to turn around and see yourself start. BUT there is no way you can move such that you end up back at the start of the track before you left.
Again, this can all be seen by drawing space-time diagrams and considering trajectories which have gradient less than 1 in the (x,ct) formulation (ie ct is the y coordinate). You can get to places where you're able to observe an earlier version of yourself from afar but no matter what you do if you try to run over and meet yourself you'll always find you're not there any more when you get there.
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 7 2009, 11:22 AM)
Decelerating a massive object at rest is similar to accelerating a massless object beyond the speed of light.
Look, Let me explain it:
Suppose there is a world where everything and everyone exist at the speed of light. They would not know space as they would be moving through it very fast. And, according to the lorentz transformations they would be at rest through time so they would understand time as space: they will consider only moving faster through time an option but would not understand going beyond rest through time i.e. go faster than light through space. They would only understand deceleration through space or acceleration through time and if anyone came up with the idea of going beyond the speed of light or having negative speed in time people like Dr. Fred would hurl all kins of abuses at him becase he would not understand him. In our world we are moving very fast through time and are at rest through space we only understand going faster through space but do not understand going beyond rest through time i.e. only acceleration through space or deceleration through time. Deceleration beyond rest through space doesn't make sense to us unless we consider the above example.
Look, Let me explain it:
Suppose there is a world where everything and everyone exist at the speed of light. They would not know space as they would be moving through it very fast. And, according to the lorentz transformations they would be at rest through time so they would understand time as space: they will consider only moving faster through time an option but would not understand going beyond rest through time i.e. go faster than light through space. They would only understand deceleration through space or acceleration through time and if anyone came up with the idea of going beyond the speed of light or having negative speed in time people like Dr. Fred would hurl all kins of abuses at him becase he would not understand him. In our world we are moving very fast through time and are at rest through space we only understand going faster through space but do not understand going beyond rest through time i.e. only acceleration through space or deceleration through time. Deceleration beyond rest through space doesn't make sense to us unless we consider the above example.
That's just words. If something travelled at the speed of light, it would not experience anything during its travel. It would just move along a null geodesic of the universe until it hit something. From its perspective that collision would happen at the speed of light and happen at the time of departure. That's how physics (QCD, QED) models things which travel at the speed of light.
They don't have rich inner lives -- they are born, travel at the speed of light, and die in a brutish manner which leaves momentum and energy at the other end.
They don't have rich inner lives -- they are born, travel at the speed of light, and die in a brutish manner which leaves momentum and energy at the other end.
You still fail to understand.
Person A is watching Person B.
Scenario 1 : Person B is at rest relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in space for all time.
Scenario 2 : Person B is moving at the speed of light relative to Person A. Person A sees B not age but varies his position in both time and space.
This is NOT the reverse of Scenario 1. The reverse of Scenario 1 is :
Scenario 3 : Person B is moving instantaneously infinitely fast relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in time for all space.
And to give a comparison with your O Levels, I research string theory for a living and have actual experience describing Scenario 3, such things are known as instatons. Localised in time but not in space, compared to solitons, localised in space but not in time. And the t <--> x exchange in something which is actually used in string theory, it's a worldsheet symmetry.
You try to tell other people that its beyond their comprehension but you don't stop to think that perhaps it's you who isn't understanding.
Person A is watching Person B.
Scenario 1 : Person B is at rest relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in space for all time.
Scenario 2 : Person B is moving at the speed of light relative to Person A. Person A sees B not age but varies his position in both time and space.
This is NOT the reverse of Scenario 1. The reverse of Scenario 1 is :
Scenario 3 : Person B is moving instantaneously infinitely fast relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in time for all space.
And to give a comparison with your O Levels, I research string theory for a living and have actual experience describing Scenario 3, such things are known as instatons. Localised in time but not in space, compared to solitons, localised in space but not in time. And the t <--> x exchange in something which is actually used in string theory, it's a worldsheet symmetry.
You try to tell other people that its beyond their comprehension but you don't stop to think that perhaps it's you who isn't understanding.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 7 2009, 05:20 PM)
You still fail to understand.
Person A is watching Person B.
Scenario 1 : Person B is at rest relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in space for all time.
Scenario 2 : Person B is moving at the speed of light relative to Person A. Person A sees B not age but varies his position in both time and space.
This is NOT the reverse of Scenario 1. The reverse of Scenario 1 is :
Scenario 3 : Person B is moving instantaneously infinitely fast relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in time for all space.
And to give a comparison with your O Levels, I research string theory for a living and have actual experience describing Scenario 3, such things are known as instatons. Localised in time but not in space, compared to solitons, localised in space but not in time. And the t <--> x exchange in something which is actually used in string theory, it's a worldsheet symmetry.
You try to tell other people that its beyond their comprehension but you don't stop to think that perhaps it's you who isn't understanding.
Ok, Now I understand:
Suppose there is a world where everything and everyone exists at infinite speed. They would not know space as they would be moving through it very fast. They would be at rest through time so they would understand time as space: they will consider only moving faster through time an option but would not understand going beyond rest through time i.e. go faster than infinity through space as it is nonsense. They would only understand deceleration through space or acceleration through time. In our world we are moving at infinite speed through time and are at rest through space, thus, we only understand going faster through space but do not understand going beyond rest through space i.e. only acceleration through space or deceleration through time. This is because deceleration beyond rest through space is impossible as it implies going beyond infinite speed through time which is nonsense.
I was making a mistake as I got confused between Alphanumeric’s ‘Scenario 2’ and ‘Scenario 3’.
And, your sentence: ‘Suppose you are in a race and you're on the starting blocks. You hear the gun and you jump to twice the speed of light. You'll get to the end of the race fast enough to be able to turn around and see yourself start. BUT there is no way you can move such that you end up back at the start of the track before you left.’ does not coincide with an article on Wikipedia entitled ‘Sending information to one’s own past’ which says that a Person A travels in a spaceship faster than light and sends a message to Person B on earth and when he receives the reply he thinks he has received the reply before he sent the message.
Person A is watching Person B.
Scenario 1 : Person B is at rest relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in space for all time.
Scenario 2 : Person B is moving at the speed of light relative to Person A. Person A sees B not age but varies his position in both time and space.
This is NOT the reverse of Scenario 1. The reverse of Scenario 1 is :
Scenario 3 : Person B is moving instantaneously infinitely fast relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in time for all space.
And to give a comparison with your O Levels, I research string theory for a living and have actual experience describing Scenario 3, such things are known as instatons. Localised in time but not in space, compared to solitons, localised in space but not in time. And the t <--> x exchange in something which is actually used in string theory, it's a worldsheet symmetry.
You try to tell other people that its beyond their comprehension but you don't stop to think that perhaps it's you who isn't understanding.
Ok, Now I understand:
Suppose there is a world where everything and everyone exists at infinite speed. They would not know space as they would be moving through it very fast. They would be at rest through time so they would understand time as space: they will consider only moving faster through time an option but would not understand going beyond rest through time i.e. go faster than infinity through space as it is nonsense. They would only understand deceleration through space or acceleration through time. In our world we are moving at infinite speed through time and are at rest through space, thus, we only understand going faster through space but do not understand going beyond rest through space i.e. only acceleration through space or deceleration through time. This is because deceleration beyond rest through space is impossible as it implies going beyond infinite speed through time which is nonsense.
I was making a mistake as I got confused between Alphanumeric’s ‘Scenario 2’ and ‘Scenario 3’.
And, your sentence: ‘Suppose you are in a race and you're on the starting blocks. You hear the gun and you jump to twice the speed of light. You'll get to the end of the race fast enough to be able to turn around and see yourself start. BUT there is no way you can move such that you end up back at the start of the track before you left.’ does not coincide with an article on Wikipedia entitled ‘Sending information to one’s own past’ which says that a Person A travels in a spaceship faster than light and sends a message to Person B on earth and when he receives the reply he thinks he has received the reply before he sent the message.
No, you don't understand, and I don't think you ever will. 
AlphaNumeric @ Nov 7 2009, 05:20 PM)
You still fail to understand.
Person A is watching Person B.
Scenario 1 : Person B is at rest relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in space for all time.
Scenario 2 : Person B is moving at the speed of light relative to Person A. Person A sees B not age but varies his position in both time and space.
This is NOT the reverse of Scenario 1. The reverse of Scenario 1 is :
Scenario 3 : Person B is moving instantaneously infinitely fast relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in time for all space.
And to give a comparison with your O Levels, I research string theory for a living and have actual experience describing Scenario 3, such things are known as instatons. Localised in time but not in space, compared to solitons, localised in space but not in time. And the t <--> x exchange in something which is actually used in string theory, it's a worldsheet symmetry.
You try to tell other people that its beyond their comprehension but you don't stop to think that perhaps it's you who isn't understanding.
Now if Alphanumeric says that Scenario 3 is the inverse Scenario 1 then my concept of speed of a body through time being the inverse of its speed through space is correct. And, there is no need to abuse if you don't understand.
[Moderator: You are suspended 10 days]
You still fail to understand.
Person A is watching Person B.
Scenario 1 : Person B is at rest relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in space for all time.
Scenario 2 : Person B is moving at the speed of light relative to Person A. Person A sees B not age but varies his position in both time and space.
This is NOT the reverse of Scenario 1. The reverse of Scenario 1 is :
Scenario 3 : Person B is moving instantaneously infinitely fast relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in time for all space.
And to give a comparison with your O Levels, I research string theory for a living and have actual experience describing Scenario 3, such things are known as instatons. Localised in time but not in space, compared to solitons, localised in space but not in time. And the t <--> x exchange in something which is actually used in string theory, it's a worldsheet symmetry.
You try to tell other people that its beyond their comprehension but you don't stop to think that perhaps it's you who isn't understanding.
Now if Alphanumeric says that Scenario 3 is the inverse Scenario 1 then my concept of speed of a body through time being the inverse of its speed through space is correct. And, there is no need to abuse if you don't understand.
[Moderator: You are suspended 10 days]
(muffled grunts of shocking abuse and horrendous sarcasm etc) ..... it's awesomely hard to be PC. 
Pipe down dipshit. When you actually know any relativity you might then be in a position to make claims about it. You talk about mathematical properties but you don't actually know any related to relativity.
The non-Euclidean nature of space-time means the simple notion of inverses doesn't always apply. The Lorentz structure is the reason why the speed of light is a barrier to accelerating objects and if you haven't done any special relativity the subtleties will be lost on you. Hell, you don't even know any calculus so you're functionally illiterate when it comes to relativity.
You don't understand but you fail to understand that you don't understand.
The non-Euclidean nature of space-time means the simple notion of inverses doesn't always apply. The Lorentz structure is the reason why the speed of light is a barrier to accelerating objects and if you haven't done any special relativity the subtleties will be lost on you. Hell, you don't even know any calculus so you're functionally illiterate when it comes to relativity.
You don't understand but you fail to understand that you don't understand.
QUOTE (AAA123+Nov 8 2009, 11:38 AM)
Now if Alphanumeric says that Scenario 3 is the inverse Scenario 1 then my concept of speed of a body through time being the inverse of its speed through space is correct. And, there is no need to abuse if you don't understand.
First off, you started another thread on the same topic. That's a violation.
Second, you failed to use the quote facility -- or any delimitation of the quoted material -- which makes it very disappointing to see this new thread started with just four lines of text from you.
Third of all, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Since before you were talking about physics and clocks and now you are just talking about coordinates and trivial interpretations of 1/velocity. That's a foul.
Fourthly, you abused authority when you took AlphaNumberics post showing where you were wrong to invent a new claim and declare yourself right. That's an insane way to treat ideas.
Therefore you are suspended 10 days, and move another step towards eventual total banning. You will no longer be treated like a fair actor, sane but misguided adult and this thread will be merged with the former thread.
First off, you started another thread on the same topic. That's a violation.
Second, you failed to use the quote facility -- or any delimitation of the quoted material -- which makes it very disappointing to see this new thread started with just four lines of text from you.
Third of all, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Since before you were talking about physics and clocks and now you are just talking about coordinates and trivial interpretations of 1/velocity. That's a foul.
Fourthly, you abused authority when you took AlphaNumberics post showing where you were wrong to invent a new claim and declare yourself right. That's an insane way to treat ideas.
Therefore you are suspended 10 days, and move another step towards eventual total banning. You will no longer be treated like a fair actor, sane but misguided adult and this thread will be merged with the former thread.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 6 2009, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE
In other words, an object with non zero mass would have to have infinite kinetic energy to travel at c. This is obviously not possible.
If it were possible to travel faster than light (it isn't) then you would be travelling backwards in time. What that means is fairly esoteric because it isn't possible.
If it were possible to travel faster than light (it isn't) then you would be travelling backwards in time. What that means is fairly esoteric because it isn't possible.
I am wondering whether KE approaching infinity cannot be conceptualized as the tendency for matter to dilate into pure space. If you look at KE as the tendency of energy to propel particles ever further from one another in space and time, then logically the unattainable ultimate limit would be absolute distance and time between particle contact, which would be impossible in a situation in which the particles have any potential to reach one another. So matter and space don't exist independently of one another then, is the conclusion I am drawing.
Since I have been playing with my crank theory of light as gravity waves today, I am wondering if light itself, rather than time travel, would be a better candidate for positing as the product of surplus energy in space. In other words, as matter approaches the speed of light, it increases in energy which may be eventually transfered into interference in the fabric of space-time itself. In other words, matter within a certain context of space-time dilation may have a maximum amount of energy it can accommodate as motion. Subsequently, any energy applied in excess of the motion limit would spill over into space-time deforming energy, which would appear as gravity waves and or light or other EM radiation.
Am I taking my new organ-grinder monkey show idea around to too many venues already?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 8 2009, 06:25 PM)
I am wondering whether KE approaching infinity cannot be conceptualized as the tendency for matter to dilate into pure space. ...
... In other words, as matter approaches the speed of light, it increases in energy which may be eventually transfered into interference in the fabric of space-time itself. In other words, matter within a certain context of space-time dilation may have a maximum amount of energy it can accommodate as motion. Subsequently, any energy applied in excess of the motion limit would spill over into space-time deforming energy, which would appear as gravity waves and or light or other EM radiation.
Actually, according to SR any 'excess energy" spills over and appears as 'relativistic kinetic energy' as a result of relativistic mass. Whether that 'excess' "spills over" into space or not, it would still show up as increased resistance to acceleration...which is exactly what we call relativistic mass.
In fact the origin of inertial mass (relativistic or otherwise) has not yet been definitively determined to be intrinsic to the matter itself, and may very well be EXtrinsic, being a function of the surrounding space itself.
See here for example ( 5th box down) of the standard formulation...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...tiv/releng.html
Lunar
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.