(Ok, heres my newbie post for now. Hope this is a good discussion topic.)
Consider the nature of time itself for a moment.
Time has been said to be 'flowing' or 'were moving' through it. Of course these descriptions may not mean anything in the real world, but could it possibly be that our brains are correct in such a description?
So here is the thought:
If you were moving above a featureless surface, and you wanted to know what your direction of travel, you can mark the surface that your passing over.
You would then know your direction of travel, as it would be opposite of the stationary mark.
Now its obvious that time flows in all directions so the surface will be a sphere. instead of a one dimensional mark, lets use the sphere itself as a marker.
Now if suddenly we were to attach the surface of the sphere to a 'stationary' point in time, which way would it go?
I thought about this surface suddenly flinging off at c like a light speed balloon, but then the fact that the balloon is increasing in size is forward progression in time, although the surface would be relativistically static. So then I figured that it may instantly collapse at c into an infinitely ever collapsing singularity, getting smaller and smaller, left behind in the temporal distance was we the observers continued through time.
(Hmmm, gravity tends to run that direction as well.)
hello scott156 
If you had a ship that can instantly travel at light speed, no matter what direction you went, your trip would seem instantaneous.
So say you're plotting a course 25 light years out towards Polaris and back.
Your ship, at instant light speed zips off and back to earth. Your trip would not last one second, in fact in your frame of reference, it was instantaneous. But on earth however, 50 years would have elapsed.
You can travel in any direction, and the result will be the same for both observers on the ship and on the ground. In this way you are traveling forward along with the flow of time, so to speak. This is the maximum speed anything can travel. In fact anything with mass cannot even reach the speed.
The ship needed to move at light speed to encounter that condition where clock aboard it didn't move. That is the static point in time. and it should be demonstrated to occur in any direction.
QUOTE
Now its obvious that time flows in all directions
what do you mean by that ? it is not obvious to me.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now its obvious that time flows in all directions |
what do you mean by that ? it is not obvious to me.
Now if suddenly we were to attach the surface of the sphere to a 'stationary' point in time, which way would it go?
Now if suddenly we were to attach the surface of the sphere to a 'stationary' point in time, which way would it go?
can you describe how you would attach anything to a stationary point in time ?
i do not think that by considering time as a spatial dimension is helping out in this example
i do not think that by considering time as a spatial dimension is helping out in this example
If you had a ship that can instantly travel at light speed, no matter what direction you went, your trip would seem instantaneous.
So say you're plotting a course 25 light years out towards Polaris and back.
Your ship, at instant light speed zips off and back to earth. Your trip would not last one second, in fact in your frame of reference, it was instantaneous. But on earth however, 50 years would have elapsed.
You can travel in any direction, and the result will be the same for both observers on the ship and on the ground. In this way you are traveling forward along with the flow of time, so to speak. This is the maximum speed anything can travel. In fact anything with mass cannot even reach the speed.
The ship needed to move at light speed to encounter that condition where clock aboard it didn't move. That is the static point in time. and it should be demonstrated to occur in any direction.
The problem with that is there needs to be a part of the journey where the ship decelerates and turns around to come back to earth. Maybe I'm nit picking, but your premise is that the journey could hypothetically take zero time but it must take some time for this reason.
QUOTE (scott156+Nov 10 2007, 04:14 AM)
(Ok, heres my newbie post for now. Hope this is a good discussion topic.)
Consider the nature of time itself for a moment.
Time has been said to be 'flowing' or 'were moving' through it. Of course these descriptions may not mean anything in the real world, but could it possibly be that our brains are correct in such a description?
So here is the thought:
If you were moving above a featureless surface, and you wanted to know what your direction of travel, you can mark the surface that your passing over.
You would then know your direction of travel, as it would be opposite of the stationary mark.
Now its obvious that time flows in all directions so the surface will be a sphere. instead of a one dimensional mark, lets use the sphere itself as a marker.
Now if suddenly we were to attach the surface of the sphere to a 'stationary' point in time, which way would it go?
I thought about this surface suddenly flinging off at c like a light speed balloon, but then the fact that the balloon is increasing in size is forward progression in time, although the surface would be relativistically static. So then I figured that it may instantly collapse at c into an infinitely ever collapsing singularity, getting smaller and smaller, left behind in the temporal distance was we the observers continued through time.
(Hmmm, gravity tends to run that direction as well.)
This sounds alot like balloon theory.
Consider the nature of time itself for a moment.
Time has been said to be 'flowing' or 'were moving' through it. Of course these descriptions may not mean anything in the real world, but could it possibly be that our brains are correct in such a description?
So here is the thought:
If you were moving above a featureless surface, and you wanted to know what your direction of travel, you can mark the surface that your passing over.
You would then know your direction of travel, as it would be opposite of the stationary mark.
Now its obvious that time flows in all directions so the surface will be a sphere. instead of a one dimensional mark, lets use the sphere itself as a marker.
Now if suddenly we were to attach the surface of the sphere to a 'stationary' point in time, which way would it go?
I thought about this surface suddenly flinging off at c like a light speed balloon, but then the fact that the balloon is increasing in size is forward progression in time, although the surface would be relativistically static. So then I figured that it may instantly collapse at c into an infinitely ever collapsing singularity, getting smaller and smaller, left behind in the temporal distance was we the observers continued through time.
(Hmmm, gravity tends to run that direction as well.)
This sounds alot like balloon theory.
you agree that
Not sure that time "flows" in ANY direction, much less in all directions. It's obvious that we experience it as the present as we progress from the past->present-> future.
What does the Universe look like to a Photon. Traveling at the speed of light, it thinks it arrives instantly, never aging (or does it?). It experiences no distance (or does it?). Yet, it can transfer momentum to physical objects. What is proper time for a photon?
QUOTE
scott156 Today at 9:54 AM If you had a ship that can instantly travel at light speed, no matter what direction you went, your trip would seem instantaneous.
is not possible, here QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| scott156 Today at 9:54 AM If you had a ship that can instantly travel at light speed, no matter what direction you went, your trip would seem instantaneous. |
is not possible, here In fact anything with mass cannot even reach the speed.
ps good call prometheus
ps good call prometheus
Of course instant light speed is not possible with a massive object like a ship, inertia would defeat that idea, plus the fact that you cannot have mass travel at exactly the speed of light. Mass increases with speed, and will become infinite at c. Mass may travel at 99.999% of c but not 100%. Thats why this can only be a thought experiment.
These ideas are not of my own originality, but can the concept of space 'moving' or 'flowing' through a dimension of time be disproved?
These ideas are not of my own originality, but can the concept of space 'moving' or 'flowing' through a dimension of time be disproved?
QUOTE (scott156+Nov 11 2007, 04:35 AM)
Of course instant light speed is not possible with a massive object like a ship, inertia would defeat that idea, plus the fact that you cannot have mass travel at exactly the speed of light. Mass increases with speed, and will become infinite at c. Mass may travel at 99.999% of c but not 100%. Thats why this can only be a thought experiment.
These ideas are not of my own originality, but can the concept of space 'moving' or 'flowing' through a dimension of time be disproved?
Thought experiments still have to be physically viable. Your thought experiment might well be interesting if the laws of physics were different. As it is, it's not really relevant.
These ideas are not of my own originality, but can the concept of space 'moving' or 'flowing' through a dimension of time be disproved?
Thought experiments still have to be physically viable. Your thought experiment might well be interesting if the laws of physics were different. As it is, it's not really relevant.
I'd say your all being a little harsh, keep in mind that some of Einstein's most famous thought experiments talked of moving at c. Both of Scott's experiments were rather poorly written (Sorry but they were), but you could all at least try and be a little more positive and a little less critical... 
www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/index.html
www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/index.html
as time is duration of events that run into space it has no direction
only objects that move into space have direction
and duration of movement of objects is time
only objects that move into space have direction
and duration of movement of objects is time
QUOTE (scott156+Nov 11 2007, 04:35 AM)
These ideas are not of my own originality, but can the concept of space 'moving' or 'flowing' through a dimension of time be disproved?
This is the falacious argument of "proving the negative" by stating that because something cannot shown to be false it must be true.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing.
This is the falacious argument of "proving the negative" by stating that because something cannot shown to be false it must be true.
Bzzzt! Thanks for playing.
QUOTE
Now its obvious that time flows in all directions
Not sure that time "flows" in ANY direction, much less in all directions. It's obvious that we experience it as the present as we progress from the past->present-> future.
What does the Universe look like to a Photon. Traveling at the speed of light, it thinks it arrives instantly, never aging (or does it?). It experiences no distance (or does it?). Yet, it can transfer momentum to physical objects. What is proper time for a photon?
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.