I believe t/d is the speed of a body through time. Speed of a body through time being the inverse of the speed of a body through space (d/t) implies that the faster we travel through space the slower we move through time and the slower we move through space the faster we move through time. Light being the speed limit is at rest through time. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity a body with mass cannot accelerate in space to the speed of light in space, in other words a body cannot decelerate beyond rest through time. Similarly a body travelling through space cannot be decelerated beyond the speed of light through time. In short we require infinite energy to accelerate a massive body through space to the speed of light through space and require infinitesimal energy to decelerate a body at rest in space.
Speed through time can be defined as time passed by a body per unit distance of its travelling. As we accelerate through space we decelerate through time. Thus, acceleration through time can be defined as the rate of change of the speed of a body through time with respect to distance, and force can be described as mass of a body multiplied by its acceleration through time. Therefore, when we decelerate a body through space we apply a force opposite to its motion through space and in the direction of its motion through time. Energy in time is this force multiplied by the amount of time the force causes the body to move through, and power in the rate of change of this energy with respect to distance. If we moved at the speed of light we would no longer understand the spatial dimensions but the time dimension would become vivid to us.
The last sentence means that since at the speed of light we would stay in our present for a relatively much longer period than others we would be able to understand time as time passes by others, as a stationary object can understand space as other relatively faster objects move through space (or space passes by them). And, since we would be able to reach any point in space with minimum amount of time passing by us we would not understand space. We, at subluminal speeds, do not understand time properly because we are travelling through it at maximum speed.
Where exactly do you come up with the assumption of an increase in speed is a decrease in time?
5 meters per second or 10 meters per second, twice the speed because of twice the distance being traversed in the same amount of time elapsed.
5 meters per second or 10 meters per second, twice the speed because of twice the distance being traversed in the same amount of time elapsed.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 28 2009, 06:42 PM)
Where exactly do you come up with the assumption of an increase in speed is a decrease in time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
I barely read more then a couple sentences of both posts... I just can't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
I barely read more then a couple sentences of both posts... I just can't.
Yes but what time dilation do you get with only 1 observer?
Also, how about that when something is at rest, that is something that has a velocity of 0 m/s, how can it have less velocity/be any more "at rest"? By going negative? A negative velocity is simply a positive velocity in opposite direction. Adding a negative is the same as subtracting a positive.
QUOTE
and require infinitesimal energy to decelerate a body at rest in space.
Also, how about that when something is at rest, that is something that has a velocity of 0 m/s, how can it have less velocity/be any more "at rest"? By going negative? A negative velocity is simply a positive velocity in opposite direction. Adding a negative is the same as subtracting a positive.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 28 2009, 08:07 PM)
Yes but what time dilation do you get with only 1 observer?
It could be that time dilation is a property of the universe. So.. the universe is always the observer.
It could be that time dilation is a property of the universe. So.. the universe is always the observer.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 28 2009, 06:42 PM)
Where exactly do you come up with the assumption of an increase in speed is a decrease in time? 5 meters per second or 10 meters per second, twice the speed because of twice the distance being traversed in the same amount of time elapsed.
The inverse of 5 m/s is 0.2 s/m and the inverse of 10 m/s is 0.1 s/m. So when travelling at 5 m/s 0.2 seconds pass by during each metre of travelling, whereas, when travelling at 10 m/s only 0.1 seconds pass by during each metre of travelling, which means that less amount of time passes by with an increase in speed.
The inverse of 5 m/s is 0.2 s/m and the inverse of 10 m/s is 0.1 s/m. So when travelling at 5 m/s 0.2 seconds pass by during each metre of travelling, whereas, when travelling at 10 m/s only 0.1 seconds pass by during each metre of travelling, which means that less amount of time passes by with an increase in speed.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 28 2009, 08:07 PM)
Yes but what time dilation do you get with only 1 observer? Also, how about that when something is at rest, that is something that has a velocity of 0 m/s, how can it have less velocity/be any more "at rest"? By going negative? A negative velocity is simply a positive velocity in opposite direction. Adding a negative is the same as subtracting a positive.
A body at rest in space is at maximum possible speed through time that is why it cannot be decelerated in space or accelerated througgh time. Similarly we cannot accelerate beyond the speed limit in space i.e the speed of light.
A body at rest in space is at maximum possible speed through time that is why it cannot be decelerated in space or accelerated througgh time. Similarly we cannot accelerate beyond the speed limit in space i.e the speed of light.
You are discussing in great detail how the motion of a particle through vacuum affects the rate of time experienced by the particle. But do you have any idea what motion, matter or time actually is? No? According to the keon hypothesis, time is just an ongoing change in the current configuration of the system we call the Universe. Only the present exists and is real. The keon hypothesis explains motion, matter, time and the cause of relativistic and gravitational time dilation. The hypothesis also explains energy, light, mass, inertia and many other things that so far have remained unexplained. If you are interested in these very deep questions, you should download the hypothesis and read it. It will probably give you a lot to think about.
The homepage of the keon hypothesis is: www.jmhook.com/en/
The homepage of the keon hypothesis is: www.jmhook.com/en/
amrit is back
Amrit, that pompous fountain of ignorance and insanity has found a way to continue to access the Internet. It is unfortunate that he has failed to become useful in anyway other than one of the many ways not to be good researcher.
Amrit, that pompous fountain of ignorance and insanity has found a way to continue to access the Internet. It is unfortunate that he has failed to become useful in anyway other than one of the many ways not to be good researcher.
QUOTE (noel+Nov 13 2009, 12:32 PM)
amrit is back
.... back on non-prescribed Class A drugs I'd wager.
p.s;- Hi Amrit
.... back on non-prescribed Class A drugs I'd wager.
p.s;- Hi Amrit
Amrit, that pompous fountain of ignorance and insanity has found a way to continue to access the Internet. It is unfortunate that he has failed to become useful in anyway other than one of the many ways not to be good researcher.
QUOTE (noel+Nov 13 2009, 06:31 PM)
check amrit work on time on arxiv
http://vixra.org/author/Amrit_S__Sorli
Vixra is not Arxiv. Vixra is for hacks and nuts. Armit isn't allowed on ArXiv and he knows it. Hence why his sock puppet, noel, is lying.
http://vixra.org/author/Amrit_S__Sorli
Vixra is not Arxiv. Vixra is for hacks and nuts. Armit isn't allowed on ArXiv and he knows it. Hence why his sock puppet, noel, is lying.
QUOTE (noel+Nov 13 2009, 05:31 PM)
check amrit work on time on arxiv
http://vixra.org/author/Amrit_S__Sorli
Armpit,
Take your sockpuppet and f... off.
http://vixra.org/author/Amrit_S__Sorli
Armpit,
Take your sockpuppet and f... off.
QUOTE (Trout+Nov 13 2009, 06:17 PM)
Armpit,
Take your sockpuppet and f... off.
I concur.
Take your sockpuppet and f... off.
I concur.
QUOTE (H2O+Oct 28 2009, 08:07 PM)
Also, how about that when something is at rest, that is something that has a velocity of 0 m/s, how can it have less velocity/be any more "at rest"? By going negative? A negative velocity is simply a positive velocity in opposite direction. Adding a negative is the same as subtracting a positive.
Maybe what he is referring to points in space where orbital motion gets relatively "cancelled out." Standing still on Earth, for example, one is still traveling at the speed of Earth's rotation plus its orbital speed around the sun. Maybe there are some points in space-time where gravity-generated motion are relatively negligible, e.g. interstellar or even intergalactic space, and time elapses very fast there? But wouldn't this contradict the idea that it would go very slow because of the increased dilation in a situation with lower gravity? I am still wondering if there is such a thing as a limit to space-time dilation if it can keep dilating infinitely as ever further distances from massive objects.
Maybe what he is referring to points in space where orbital motion gets relatively "cancelled out." Standing still on Earth, for example, one is still traveling at the speed of Earth's rotation plus its orbital speed around the sun. Maybe there are some points in space-time where gravity-generated motion are relatively negligible, e.g. interstellar or even intergalactic space, and time elapses very fast there? But wouldn't this contradict the idea that it would go very slow because of the increased dilation in a situation with lower gravity? I am still wondering if there is such a thing as a limit to space-time dilation if it can keep dilating infinitely as ever further distances from massive objects.
Its simple when we run at 3 m/s 0.33 seconds pass by each metre we travel. According to this a body at rest cannot be decelerated because it already is travelling at infinite speed through time. Decelerationg it would mean going beyond infinite s/m through time which is nonsense. Also going into the past would require us to go beyond infinite m/s through time because at the latter we would be at rest in time which is also nonsense.
QUOTE
The inverse of 5 m/s is 0.2 s/m and the inverse of 10 m/s is 0.1 s/m. So when traveling at 5 m/s 0.2 seconds pass by during each meter of traveling, whereas, when traveling at 10 m/s only 0.1 seconds pass by during each meter of traveling, which means that less amount of time passes by with an increase in speed.
Now what you are describing there is taking less time to travel the same distance.
.2 s/m is .2 seconds per 1 meter
.1 s/m is .1 second per 1 meter
It has nothing to do with time slowing or speeding up it only has to do with taking more or less time to traverse the same distance because you are going faster or slower. If you traveled for .1 second going 5 m/s you would only travel 1/2 a meter where if you traveled for .2 seconds going 10 m/s you would travel 2 meters.
In order to have less time pass by with an increase in speed you would need to see is the following.
Holding to 5 m/s means it take .2 seconds to travel 1 meter (which it does) then when doubling your speed to 10 m/s it would have to take < .1 second to travel 1 meter (which it doesn't). If the scale is linear i think it would mean it would take .05 seconds to travel 1 meter when traveling 10 m/s. If traveling faster through space meant traveling slower through time.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The inverse of 5 m/s is 0.2 s/m and the inverse of 10 m/s is 0.1 s/m. So when traveling at 5 m/s 0.2 seconds pass by during each meter of traveling, whereas, when traveling at 10 m/s only 0.1 seconds pass by during each meter of traveling, which means that less amount of time passes by with an increase in speed. |
Now what you are describing there is taking less time to travel the same distance.
.2 s/m is .2 seconds per 1 meter
.1 s/m is .1 second per 1 meter
It has nothing to do with time slowing or speeding up it only has to do with taking more or less time to traverse the same distance because you are going faster or slower. If you traveled for .1 second going 5 m/s you would only travel 1/2 a meter where if you traveled for .2 seconds going 10 m/s you would travel 2 meters.
In order to have less time pass by with an increase in speed you would need to see is the following.
Holding to 5 m/s means it take .2 seconds to travel 1 meter (which it does) then when doubling your speed to 10 m/s it would have to take < .1 second to travel 1 meter (which it doesn't). If the scale is linear i think it would mean it would take .05 seconds to travel 1 meter when traveling 10 m/s. If traveling faster through space meant traveling slower through time.
Also going into the past would require us to go beyond infinite m/s
Which gives another point. Isn't it that if we could reach the speed of light that time would stand still according to time dilation? And that going beyond that would result in a reversal in time? The speed of light is a tiny number compared to the numbers that are between it and infinite.
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 19 2009, 06:06 PM)
Now what you are describing there is taking less time to travel the same distance.
.2 s/m is .2 seconds per 1 meter
.1 s/m is .1 second per 1 meter
It has nothing to do with time slowing or speeding up it only has to do with taking more or less time to traverse the same distance because you are going faster or slower. If you traveled for .1 second going 5 m/s you would only travel 1/2 a meter where if you traveled for .2 seconds going 10 m/s you would travel 2 meters.
In order to have less time pass by with an increase in speed you would need to see is the following.
Holding to 5 m/s means it take .2 seconds to travel 1 meter (which it does) then when doubling your speed to 10 m/s it would have to take < .1 second to travel 1 meter (which it doesn't). If the scale is linear i think it would mean it would take .05 seconds to travel 1 meter when traveling 10 m/s. If traveling faster through space meant traveling slower through time.
Which gives another point. Isn't it that if we could reach the speed of light that time would stand still according to time dilation? And that going beyond that would result in a reversal in time? The speed of light is a tiny number compared to the numbers that are between it and infinite.
I didn't say time speeding up or slowing down. I said the rate of our motion through time wrt distance traversed changes as the rate of our motion through space wrt time changes.
QUOTE
I said the rate of our motion through time wrt distance traversed changes as the rate of our motion through space wrt time changes.
Except that you just said the same thing, two different ways and referred to it as being different.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I said the rate of our motion through time wrt distance traversed changes as the rate of our motion through space wrt time changes. |
Except that you just said the same thing, two different ways and referred to it as being different.
I didn't say time speeding up or slowing down.
That is exactly what you were referring to with such a statement as..
QUOTE
Also going into the past would require us to go beyond infinite m/s through time because at the latter we would be at rest in time which is also nonsense.
There is a difference between taking less time to traverse the same distance and time slowing down. You are simply not seeing this difference and confusing the two.
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 20 2009, 01:12 PM)
Except that you just said the same thing, two different ways and referred to it as being different.
That is exactly what you were referring to with such a statement as..
There is a difference between taking less time to traverse the same distance and time slowing down. You are simply not seeing this difference and confusing the two.
When we take less time to traverse a distance we take more distance to traverse time. This what I mean as slowing down through time.
QUOTE
When we take less time to traverse a distance we take more distance to traverse time. This what I mean as slowing down through time.
So what you mean by slowing down through time has nothing to do with slowing down time. So you really did say the same thing twice and confused it as being different. Also if that is what you meant, why even mention going back through time?
QUOTE (H2O+Nov 20 2009, 06:42 PM)
So what you mean by slowing down through time has nothing to do with slowing down time. So you really did say the same thing twice and confused it as being different. Also if that is what you meant, why even mention going back through time?
I mentione going back in time because when we are at rest in time we would be able to travel anywhere in space instantly. However if we have negative speed through time we would be able to travel anywhere before we travelled there implying time travel into the past as we would find ourselves at our destination before we even moved.
The possibility of one travelling to his past is similar to that of him reaching his destination before he starts his journey when his destination is not his current position.
Traveling to the past is like going back to the start after you reached the destination. Reaching your destination before you leave the start is like teleportation.
You're still all mixed up and confused.
You're still all mixed up and confused.
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.