a) The speed of light, in space as we know it?
Time, in space as we know it?
Which do you think is faster.
a) The speed of light, in space as we know it?
Time, in space as we know it?
a) The speed of light, in space as we know it?
Time, in space as we know it?QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 25 2011, 02:44 AM)
Which do you think is faster.
a) The speed of light, in space as we know it?
Time, in space as we know it?
While special relativity limits the speed of light in space, it does not limit the speed at which space itself expands. Since time is a function of change, and the rate of change of space can exceed the speed of light, time can flow faster than light.
a) The speed of light, in space as we know it?
Time, in space as we know it?While special relativity limits the speed of light in space, it does not limit the speed at which space itself expands. Since time is a function of change, and the rate of change of space can exceed the speed of light, time can flow faster than light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#History
Because of how time and space are related, an object at relative rest can be said to move through time at about the speed of light, while the closer it approaches moving at the speed of light the slower it "moves" through time. So the speed of light is a limit in both time and space.
So spatial expansion faster than light would, at most, imply no movement through time.
QUOTE
According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed.
Because of how time and space are related, an object at relative rest can be said to move through time at about the speed of light, while the closer it approaches moving at the speed of light the slower it "moves" through time. So the speed of light is a limit in both time and space.
So spatial expansion faster than light would, at most, imply no movement through time.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 25 2011, 05:44 AM)
Which do you think is faster.
a) The speed of light, in space as we know it?
b) Time, in space as we know it?
I tried to answer this questions earlier in the day but unfortunately my phone hanged. Looks like a trick question. We use time to measure speed. When measuring the speed of time, do you still use time? When light passes we know it is from point alpha to point omega. When time passes does it transverse space as object do? I need to think harder. Looks like a trick question in my humble opinion.
a) The speed of light, in space as we know it?
b) Time, in space as we know it?
I tried to answer this questions earlier in the day but unfortunately my phone hanged. Looks like a trick question. We use time to measure speed. When measuring the speed of time, do you still use time? When light passes we know it is from point alpha to point omega. When time passes does it transverse space as object do? I need to think harder. Looks like a trick question in my humble opinion.
Just remembered. The right statement since Herr. Einstein came into the picture is light moves through spacetime. Framed this way question b) may not be asked cause it contains elements of question a).
QUOTE (boit+Mar 25 2011, 10:42 AM)
I tried to answer this questions earlier in the day but unfortunately my phone hanged. Looks like a trick question. We use time to measure speed. When measuring the speed of time, do you still use time? When light passes we know it is from point alpha to point omega. When time passes does it transverse space as object do? I need to think harder. Looks like a trick question in my humble opinion.
Time is a measure of change not speed in my opinion.
As a measure of change it surely must traverse space. In fact time as a measure of change is instantaneous as change occurs. Well thats my theory anyway.
To test it, I ask the following question.
Light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach earth. If hypothetically, the sun were to instantaneously dissappear, we would still see the sun shining for 8 more minutes, but the effect of the suns dissappearing would be immedietly felt....I think.
Therefore, time as a measurment of change, is immediete, whereas light, takes 8 minutes to hit the earth.
This thought pattern may be totally flawed, so feel free to correct me where I am wrong.
Time is a measure of change not speed in my opinion.
As a measure of change it surely must traverse space. In fact time as a measure of change is instantaneous as change occurs. Well thats my theory anyway.
To test it, I ask the following question.
Light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach earth. If hypothetically, the sun were to instantaneously dissappear, we would still see the sun shining for 8 more minutes, but the effect of the suns dissappearing would be immedietly felt....I think.
Therefore, time as a measurment of change, is immediete, whereas light, takes 8 minutes to hit the earth.
This thought pattern may be totally flawed, so feel free to correct me where I am wrong.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 26 2011, 04:40 AM)
Light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach earth. If hypothetically, the sun were to instantaneously dissappear, we would still see the sun shining for 8 more minutes, but the effect of the suns dissappearing would be immedietly felt....I think.
As far as we can tell, gravity propagates at the speed of light as well, so we'd notice the effect of the sun's missing mass at the same time we'd notice it's light gone.
As far as we can tell, gravity propagates at the speed of light as well, so we'd notice the effect of the sun's missing mass at the same time we'd notice it's light gone.
''The disappearance will be immediately felt. You know immediate is a measure of time meaning at no time. Zero time elapses. Time never took off so how is it faster than light? Am not being rhetoric but just thinking aloud 
. @ synth. When a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear the thud, it still fell. There was a thud. Maybe no noise but a thud it was. 
just joking. I understand your point. Before i knew better i used to believe gravity acted in no time. I argued that gravity was analogous to a road while light will be a vehicle on that road. A vehicle with infinite acceleration. Now i know better. Gravito if observed will move at c.
. @ synth. When a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear the thud, it still fell. There was a thud. Maybe no noise but a thud it was. just joking. I understand your point. Before i knew better i used to believe gravity acted in no time. I argued that gravity was analogous to a road while light will be a vehicle on that road. A vehicle with infinite acceleration. Now i know better. Gravito if observed will move at c.
Oops! I just noticed that I agree with you about time being instantaneous. Maybe we shouldn't compare the for just that reason. Oranges and seeds?
Usually your posts are a little more coherent, Boit. 
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 26 2011, 10:02 PM)
Usually your posts are a little more coherent, Boit.
Strange thing happens when am using a phone browser. You don't have the luxury of all the keys and there is time to beat before the darn cellular phone hangs. It was a Samsung X820 (they don't make them anymore) that I bought exactly four years ago.
Strange thing happens when am using a phone browser. You don't have the luxury of all the keys and there is time to beat before the darn cellular phone hangs. It was a Samsung X820 (they don't make them anymore) that I bought exactly four years ago.
QUOTE
Oops! I just noticed that I agree with you about time being instantaneous. Maybe we shouldn't compare the for just that reason. Oranges and seeds
I was agreeing with fredinjeddah when he saidQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oops! I just noticed that I agree with you about time being instantaneous. Maybe we shouldn't compare the for just that reason. Oranges and seeds |
I was agreeing with fredinjeddah when he saidIn fact time as a measure of change is instantaneous as change occurs......Therefore, time as a measurement of change, is immediate, whereas light, takes 8 minutes to hit the earth.
. The orange and seed thing is my variant of apples and oranges. I must have applied it wrongly but I still think time is a dimension among the other three in which light has to move through. I can't seem to be able to express myself too well today. 
QUOTE (boit+Mar 26 2011, 03:42 PM)
I can't seem to be able to express myself too well today.
That's okay, it happens.
Certainly, I was just addressing the relationship between time and space. How motion through space effects motion through time (time dilation).
That's okay, it happens.
QUOTE
...but I still think time is a dimension among the other three in which light has to move through.
Certainly, I was just addressing the relationship between time and space. How motion through space effects motion through time (time dilation).
QUOTE (boit+Mar 26 2011, 09:42 PM)
I must have applied it wrongly but I still think time is a dimension among the other three in which light has to move through. I can't seem to be able to express myself too well today.
This statement made me wonder. There are 10 dimensions and 1 dimension of time proposed by theorists. Do all the 10 dimensions require time to exist before they can exist?
This statement made me wonder. There are 10 dimensions and 1 dimension of time proposed by theorists. Do all the 10 dimensions require time to exist before they can exist?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 27 2011, 12:53 AM)
Do all the 10 dimensions require time to exist before they can exist?
No, time being a measurement of change has no meaning without some space in which to allow change. Space and mass can be considered to be prerequisite to time. Time would require at least one dimension of space.
No, time being a measurement of change has no meaning without some space in which to allow change. Space and mass can be considered to be prerequisite to time. Time would require at least one dimension of space.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 27 2011, 05:15 PM)
No, time being a measurement of change has no meaning without some space in which to allow change. Space and mass can be considered to be prerequisite to time. Time would require at least one dimension of space.
Wouldn't it be correct to say that time requires space to exist, but not neccesarily mass. As space is created, time as a measure of change exists, without the requirment of mass.
Of course what space exactly is, is sometimes confusing to me. From what I understand, space means "space and time" and is the space within which everything we know and do not yet know exists.
Space I would think would be massless, but I have never considered that till now. Is space massless?
Wouldn't it be correct to say that time requires space to exist, but not neccesarily mass. As space is created, time as a measure of change exists, without the requirment of mass.
Of course what space exactly is, is sometimes confusing to me. From what I understand, space means "space and time" and is the space within which everything we know and do not yet know exists.
Space I would think would be massless, but I have never considered that till now. Is space massless?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 27 2011, 12:13 PM)
Wouldn't it be correct to say that time requires space to exist, but not neccesarily mass. As space is created, time as a measure of change exists, without the requirment of mass.
Of course what space exactly is, is sometimes confusing to me. From what I understand, space means "space and time" and is the space within which everything we know and do not yet know exists.
Space I would think would be massless, but I have never considered that till now. Is space massless?
Time is a measure of change. Space doesn't itself provide any landmarks by which to make any judgment of a change. IOW, we'd never notice an expansion of space without some landmark, so it would only be philosophical to discuss time without mass.
Space is just space. Spacetime is how space and time are connected though an interaction with mass. Spacetime curvature, and thus any reason for defining a spacetime, doesn't exist without mass.
Space is distinct from mass.
Of course what space exactly is, is sometimes confusing to me. From what I understand, space means "space and time" and is the space within which everything we know and do not yet know exists.
Space I would think would be massless, but I have never considered that till now. Is space massless?
Time is a measure of change. Space doesn't itself provide any landmarks by which to make any judgment of a change. IOW, we'd never notice an expansion of space without some landmark, so it would only be philosophical to discuss time without mass.
Space is just space. Spacetime is how space and time are connected though an interaction with mass. Spacetime curvature, and thus any reason for defining a spacetime, doesn't exist without mass.
Space is distinct from mass.
QUOTE (synthsin75+Mar 27 2011, 06:48 PM)
Time is a measure of change. Space doesn't itself provide any landmarks by which to make any judgment of a change. IOW, we'd never notice an expansion of space without some landmark, so it would only be philosophical to discuss time without mass.
Doesn't your argument pre-suppose that space always existed?
Wouldn't the very creation of space be a measure of change? Nothing, then something = change over a period of time. This argument pre-supposes time already exists, but it could be called potential time. Now I am thinking Time came first
[COLOR=red]Space and Time -> Matter
Time -> Space -> Matter[COLOR=red]
To me, your argument which I am not dismissing, just testing, would be:
[COLOR=red](Space always existed) - Space expands - Matter for landmark - Time[COLOR=red]
even in this example time exists once there is a change between space and inflation of space......time already exists and can be measured.
I still seem to see time as existing before matter needs to exist, but I know why. I am viewing the argument from outside the universe (as though something existed then) and you are logically viewing your argument from inside the universe where we find ourselves.
It is a question of, if there is nothing, and then something, was there a change. Before something there maybe was nothing, so does this mean there could not have been a change, as nothing is nothing? Should there be a zero or should we start at 1. What do the programmers out there think?
This argument seems to ignore infinity, but I haven't entirely ruled infinity out, infinity existed before our universe. Of course if we claim infinity exists infinitly, then time should also be infinite.....No?
Too many thoughts in one post. Ignore if it was rambling and it is probably as you say more philosophy then anything else.
Doesn't your argument pre-suppose that space always existed?
Wouldn't the very creation of space be a measure of change? Nothing, then something = change over a period of time. This argument pre-supposes time already exists, but it could be called potential time. Now I am thinking Time came first
[COLOR=red]Space and Time -> Matter
Time -> Space -> Matter[COLOR=red]
To me, your argument which I am not dismissing, just testing, would be:
[COLOR=red](Space always existed) - Space expands - Matter for landmark - Time[COLOR=red]
even in this example time exists once there is a change between space and inflation of space......time already exists and can be measured.
I still seem to see time as existing before matter needs to exist, but I know why. I am viewing the argument from outside the universe (as though something existed then) and you are logically viewing your argument from inside the universe where we find ourselves.
It is a question of, if there is nothing, and then something, was there a change. Before something there maybe was nothing, so does this mean there could not have been a change, as nothing is nothing? Should there be a zero or should we start at 1. What do the programmers out there think?
This argument seems to ignore infinity, but I haven't entirely ruled infinity out, infinity existed before our universe. Of course if we claim infinity exists infinitly, then time should also be infinite.....No?
Too many thoughts in one post. Ignore if it was rambling and it is probably as you say more philosophy then anything else.
QUOTE
Space is distinct from mass.
Does it have none of the hallmarks of mass at all?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Mar 27 2011, 03:35 PM)
Doesn't your argument pre-suppose that space always existed?
Wouldn't the very creation of space be a measure of change? Nothing, then something = change over a period of time. This argument pre-supposes time already exists, but it could be called potential time. Now I am thinking Time came first
Space and Time -> Matter
Time -> Space -> Matter
To me, your argument which I am not dismissing, just testing, would be:
(Space always existed) - Space expands - Matter for landmark - Time
even in this example time exists once there is a change between space and inflation of space......time already exists and can be measured.
There's no supposition of a infinitely existing space. A couple of things you may be missing.
1) We'd have no way to tell that space was expanding without some objects (mass). Since space isn't a substance, we have no way to tell if it is doing anything except in relation to something of substance.
2) Objects (mass) define our measurement of space just as much as our measurement of time. Time is a measurement of change of observables relative to some mass, while space is a measurement of distance between objects.
It doesn't really make sense to talk about space, time, and mass as being steps on the same chain of causation.
This is definitely in the realm of philosophy. Almost completely different discussion than one about physics. I'm willing to discuss in that light, but we should make a clear distinction between the two discussions.
This is definitely in the realm of philosophy. Almost completely different discussion than one about physics. I'm willing to discuss in that light, but we should make a clear distinction between the two discussions.
Does it have none of the hallmarks of mass at all?
Only that it requires some extent, which means mass is only like space because it takes up space.
Wouldn't the very creation of space be a measure of change? Nothing, then something = change over a period of time. This argument pre-supposes time already exists, but it could be called potential time. Now I am thinking Time came first
Space and Time -> Matter
Time -> Space -> Matter
To me, your argument which I am not dismissing, just testing, would be:
(Space always existed) - Space expands - Matter for landmark - Time
even in this example time exists once there is a change between space and inflation of space......time already exists and can be measured.
There's no supposition of a infinitely existing space. A couple of things you may be missing.
1) We'd have no way to tell that space was expanding without some objects (mass). Since space isn't a substance, we have no way to tell if it is doing anything except in relation to something of substance.
2) Objects (mass) define our measurement of space just as much as our measurement of time. Time is a measurement of change of observables relative to some mass, while space is a measurement of distance between objects.
It doesn't really make sense to talk about space, time, and mass as being steps on the same chain of causation.
QUOTE
It is a question of, if there is nothing, and then something, was there a change. Before something there maybe was nothing, so does this mean there could not have been a change, as nothing is nothing? Should there be a zero or should we start at 1. What do the programmers out there think?
This argument seems to ignore infinity, but I haven't entirely ruled infinity out, infinity existed before our universe. Of course if we claim infinity exists infinitly, then time should also be infinite.....No?
Too many thoughts in one post. Ignore if it was rambling and it is probably as you say more philosophy then anything else.
This argument seems to ignore infinity, but I haven't entirely ruled infinity out, infinity existed before our universe. Of course if we claim infinity exists infinitly, then time should also be infinite.....No?
Too many thoughts in one post. Ignore if it was rambling and it is probably as you say more philosophy then anything else.
This is definitely in the realm of philosophy. Almost completely different discussion than one about physics. I'm willing to discuss in that light, but we should make a clear distinction between the two discussions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is a question of, if there is nothing, and then something, was there a change. Before something there maybe was nothing, so does this mean there could not have been a change, as nothing is nothing? Should there be a zero or should we start at 1. What do the programmers out there think? This argument seems to ignore infinity, but I haven't entirely ruled infinity out, infinity existed before our universe. Of course if we claim infinity exists infinitly, then time should also be infinite.....No? Too many thoughts in one post. Ignore if it was rambling and it is probably as you say more philosophy then anything else. |
This is definitely in the realm of philosophy. Almost completely different discussion than one about physics. I'm willing to discuss in that light, but we should make a clear distinction between the two discussions.
Does it have none of the hallmarks of mass at all?
Only that it requires some extent, which means mass is only like space because it takes up space.
Time travel is an illusion! Space/time seems to have the same characteristics as the " law of thermal dynamic's" , it expands outwards in all directions! Space/time doesn't have a "face", it doesn't have a "back". If you put a ball on the ground and asked it to roll forward. The ball would say what is forward? What is backward? Starting to get it! lol
With any scientific discovery! All it has proved is that , as you travel through space/time. Just like a hull of a boat pushing through the water, pressure's are applied to the ship/ space that is moving forward. As you move faster the pressure's increase, which limit the particles movement within the field.
It's only a form of suspended animation , so to speak! As the particles are pushed closer together, things begin to slow down, because movement becomes difficult your heart beats slower, it takes longer for your voice to travel from one side of the room to the other. In our point of view, time is moving slower to us, due to the fact of how we usely perceive it!
So, you may be able to slow your time down, within the field that you are in! Though time outside your field will move along at the same pace with space..lol Though to claim time travel you would have to be able to move backward or forward!
The only Time travel that we may be able to claim! Is to go a very long distance and not age as quick as we do on earth..... " Suspended animation"...
If there is any concrete evidence or common sense discussion on different theoretical idea's...
Just remember, We don't know what negative time is? To move backwards in relation to us... means only a different direction to " Space/time"!
Negative time... we don't even know what a negative temperature is ( oh! that for another discussion..lol
Will enjoy any feed back
With any scientific discovery! All it has proved is that , as you travel through space/time. Just like a hull of a boat pushing through the water, pressure's are applied to the ship/ space that is moving forward. As you move faster the pressure's increase, which limit the particles movement within the field.
It's only a form of suspended animation , so to speak! As the particles are pushed closer together, things begin to slow down, because movement becomes difficult your heart beats slower, it takes longer for your voice to travel from one side of the room to the other. In our point of view, time is moving slower to us, due to the fact of how we usely perceive it!
So, you may be able to slow your time down, within the field that you are in! Though time outside your field will move along at the same pace with space..lol Though to claim time travel you would have to be able to move backward or forward!
The only Time travel that we may be able to claim! Is to go a very long distance and not age as quick as we do on earth..... " Suspended animation"...
If there is any concrete evidence or common sense discussion on different theoretical idea's...
Just remember, We don't know what negative time is? To move backwards in relation to us... means only a different direction to " Space/time"!
Negative time... we don't even know what a negative temperature is ( oh! that for another discussion..lol
Will enjoy any feed back
That's very interesting topic for me, I watch a lot of scientific shows on Discovery Science, and I enjoy that a lot 
I'm glad I found this community.
I'm glad I found this community.
I think it depends on what you mean by time. To measure time we need to observe some kind of change, that is some kind of physical process. And these physical processes can't "happen" faster than the speed of light limit permits. The way I see it, and I might be wrong of course, is that no change = no time passed, change = time passed. And since any change, for example elementary particles interacting, at smallest level happens at the speed of light (or very very close to c) speed of light = speed of time. Of course the point about the expansion of space is very interesting. Though I haven't learned enough cosmology to talk about it yet.
Cheers
Cheers
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.