- #1

- 31

- 0

Read the other one this is messed up

Last edited:

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter The_oMeGa
- Start date

- #1

- 31

- 0

Read the other one this is messed up

Last edited:

- #2

- 31

- 0

Not according to Einstein.

Einstein proposed that time was relative. He said that the speed of light was the only constant in the universe and that time depended on the position and velocity of an object. His idea was that the speed of light was the only universal absolute, and nothing could exceed that speed; that to go the speed of light time would have to slow down.

The conflict of this, however, is that Einstein said that for an object to travel the speed of light time must slow down (Because, of course, velocity is distance divided by time). This would mean that time need not slow down for any mass in motion until it comes upon the speed of light; this would contradict the idea of a man walking would age less than a man sitting. Since the latter was proven we must assume that this theory is true, not to disprove the light theory, but my idea is that Einstein didn't quite take that idea to the full extreme.

The fourth dimension is time. Imagine time as a platform that is pushing you forward at the speed of light. You and your friends each have their own "platform". You would arrive about 670,000,000 miles away in exactly 1 hour. But say you walk at a speed of 10 miles per hour on your platform. You would exceed the speed of light by 10 mph, but if einstein was correct in saying that the speed of light cannot be exceeded, then time would be forced to slow down. You would arrive at the same place at the same time as your friends on their platforms, but time would have slowed for you.

Still again, as the pattern goes on, what if you started running at the speed of light on your platform. To keep you from exceeding the speed of light, wouldn't time be forced to "stop"?

While this theory is of course yet to be proven, it does propose that time, although relative to the observer, is constant to the universe.

- #3

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,800

- 798

Originally posted by The_oMeGa

He said that the speed of light was the only constant in the universe

Well, you're getting the idea. He said that C is a constant but not the only constant. He says nothing about what happens if one could get to C, only what happens as we approach this apparent speed limit. You need to do some more reading but you're starting to get it.

- #4

LURCH

Science Advisor

- 2,552

- 118

- #5

- 42

- 0

i have a few idea on this....first i think speed of time is a new idea that is worth to be consider.

why our time slow down when we are moving( no matter what speed)? IMO, because time need to chase us. the rate of time that flow from 0 to 1 second is the same for stars far away if they speed is the same to earth speed. when you approaching the speed of light, time need to chase you, that's why you know that your time become slower compare to an observer in earth.

when you enter a room, you see everythings didn't move(man standing still,water stop in the air, etc) then you said that the time in the room has stop. but does it really? just because things didn't move in space doesn't mean the time have stop. from here we can know the relationship of spacetime.IMO time is more than its definition, time is a space(still thinking,sorry).

- #6

RuroumiKenshin

- #7

Alexander

(That is why tiny "i" in front of it in all SR, GR and QM equations when you try to mix it with space - to distinguish it from spatial coordinates which ARE the dimensions (degrees of freedom) we know.)

- #8

- 31

- 0

So alexander, you don't believe that Einstein was correct in saying time is relative? It's just a coordinate, never changing? What if, like i said, you were going the speed of light, and you accelerated to

Y = 1 year

(10mph/C * Y) + Y

*

Therefore time would have slowed 10/C for as long as you were traveling at that velocity.

PS try to keep the physics terms simple LOL havent had physics, 10th grade.

- #9

- 50

- 0

The fourth dimension is time. Imagine time as a platform that is pushing you forward at the speed of light.

So....are you taking time as a spatial dimension....

- #10

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

Dimension is freedom to move

No... dimension is the number of linearly independant directions.

That is why tiny "i" in front of it in all SR, GR and QM equations

What i? The only way time is distinguished in SR and GR is from the signature of the metric, which is chosen to agree with reality, not because time really isn't a dimension and we're fudging the mathematics to make it look like a dimension.

- #11

- 31

- 0

But i do believe that time is more of a "free" dimension than the coordinate idea we associate it with. I believe there

I think that time is relative to speed(and of course to the observer). I think time varies inversley with Speed

- #12

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,096

- 0

Since Newton at least (I think) time was

considered to be a parameter that discribes

the rate of occurance of physical processes.

SR was formed by combining the constancy of

the speed of light (c) with the above assumption -

simply applying it. That is also the way time

is percieved today.

Live long and prosper.

- #13

- 31

- 0

So my whole theory is nothing new?

- #14

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,096

- 0

I appologize, but after reading your messagesOriginally posted by The_oMeGa

So my whole theory is nothing new?

I still do not understand what that theory is.

Just think of time as a clock. Everything and

everyone has it and the clock makes certain

all the laws of physics stay the same for

that thing/person. Why would someone

consider it to be a dimension ? Because

a dimension is some continuum - like the

real line R in math. Now we have spacial

dimensions that discribe the relative

position of an object to us and we have

the time dimension to discribe the relative

point in time of an object.

Now, before relativity we thought everything

is simultaneous and the time was the same

for every object. But, this is wrong and

in fact unintuative when you consider it

a bit more and when you know light has

a limmited velocity. For example, if I send

a spaceship to a certain galaxy and the

cute alien in that galaxy knows emmidiately

it's coming because he can see it - there's

no need for some different time for him relative

to me. But, if light and every other interaction

is limmited to c and less he will only see

the spaceship departing millions of years later -

thus he has a different time value for this event

relative to me.

A usefull term to discribe this is a "light cone".

Basicly, I consider an event to be a definite

point in space-time (definite space and time values)

relative to me, then time is the line passing

through that point and the center of a 2D (for

a simple example) cone and the growing weidth

of the cone are the spacial dimensions - volume value,

with the relation between these two parameters

defined by c - the speed of light (the limmit

for the speed of any interaction spreading in

space). Thus I get a light cone for my event.

For my space-time coordinates I get a certain

sequence of light cones - events. But, for

a different observer the sequence may be different

depending on his relative (to me) motion through

space-time.

Live long and prosper.

- #15

- 152

- 0

C=T=G all the same.

- #16

- 31

- 0

Time is relative to the observer, and varies inversley with the speed of the observer

Say you are going at the speed of

This is fairly simple, which is why I asked if it had been stated before.

- #17

- 152

- 0

- #18

RuroumiKenshin

Time is relative to the observer, and varies inversley with the speed of the observer but only when the observer has reached the speed of light.

Can you expand on how 'inversely' time varies?

- #19

RuroumiKenshin

then time is the line passing

through that point and the center of a 2D (for

a simple example) cone and the growing weidth

of the cone are the spacial dimensions

A line, drag? A line describes a 2D surface...but then you said you used 2D for simplicity. But, you also included a 3 demensional figure, a cone into the example, so now I'm a little bewildered.

- #20

Alexander

Originally posted by Hurkyl

No... dimension is the number of linearly independant directions.

Is time a direction?

If you think so, then how about energy, or mass, or temperature?

What i? The only way time is distinguished in SR and GR is from the signature of the metric, which is chosen to agree with reality, not because time really isn't a dimension and we're fudging the mathematics to make it look like a dimension.

That is exactly what we do (fudging the mathematics for our convinience). Because math is strictly logic, it shows us that time and space don't mix, forcing us to separate them by i=(-1)

Last edited by a moderator:

- #21

drag

Science Advisor

- 1,096

- 0

Isn't time supposed to be a vector, not a scalar ?Originally posted by Alexander

Is time a direction?

If you think so, then how about energy, or

mass, or temperature?

It's not really a cone if it's 2D, you're right.Originally posted by MajinVegeta

A line, drag? A line describes a 2D surface...

but then you said you used 2D for simplicity.

But, you also included a 3 demensional figure,

a cone into the example, so now I'm a little

bewildered.

I used a 2D example to simplify my discription.

The weidth represents volume - 3 spacial dimensions.

The other perpendicular axis is time, of course.

So, the volume - V = (2 * c * t)^3 .

Live long and prosper.

- #22

- 31

- 0

- #23

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

Is time a direction?

Nope. Neither is space or position.

That is exactly what we do (fudging the mathematics for our convinience). Because math is strictly logic, it shows us that time and space don't mix, forcing us to separate them by i=(-1)^{0.5}

Do left and right mix?

What about North and East?

- #24

- 152

- 0

- #25

Alexander

Time obviousely is not a dimension, but a coordinate. Dimension is defined as a degree of freedom to move back and forth in, but how to move back and forth in time?

Also, time is scalar value (can be positive or negative, but does not have direction). So is each dimension of space. To be a vector, you need at least 2 numbers. A bunch of spatial coordinates, or space and time coordinate(s) can be considered a vector (if it has at least 2 quantities).

Also, time is scalar value (can be positive or negative, but does not have direction). So is each dimension of space. To be a vector, you need at least 2 numbers. A bunch of spatial coordinates, or space and time coordinate(s) can be considered a vector (if it has at least 2 quantities).

Last edited by a moderator:

Share: