Why is speed defined as distance/time and not time/distance?

[WarrenPlatts]

We need a new word for t/d. I propose "torpidity". Thus, a stationary object would have infinite torpidity; something traveling at an infinite velocity would have zero torpidity.

The weird thing, however, is if special relativity is true, a stationary object would not have infinite torpidity. Just as SR places a speed limit on how fast objects go, SR also places a torpidity limit on how slow objects go. At the speed of light an object travels 3 X 10^8 meters in one second. Thus, a stationary object would have a torpidity of 3 X 10^8 seconds per meter; i.e, a stationary object actually travels 1 meter in 3 X 10^8 seconds.

I think this explains the expansion of the universe.

 

[Son Goku]

The weird thing, however, is if special relativity is true, a stationary object would not have infinite torpidity. Just as SR places a speed limit on how fast objects go, SR also places a torpidity limit on how slow objects go. At the speed of light an object travels 3 X 10^8 meters in one second. Thus, a stationary object would have a torpidity of 3 X 10^8 seconds per meter; i.e, a stationary object actually travels 1 meter in 3 X 10^8 seconds.

Using t/d, the speed of light would be equivalent to 3.3x10^-9 s/m.
Meaning the minimum amount of time you can cover over one meter is 3.3 nanoseconds, which is equivalent to an upper speed limit.

A stationary object travels an infinite amount of seconds over every meter and in t/d notation this can be reduced to lower limit of 3.3 nanoseconds over every meter.
Which doesn't imply that a stationary object travels one meter every 3 X 10^8 seconds.

Another point is that in relativistic units t/d and d/t disappear.

So 300 million meters per second and 3.3 nanoseconds per meter both become just 1.

 

[Futobingoro]

This discussion needs more participation.

We must lower the torpidity of this thread if it is to move forward.

 

[hypnagogue]

I believe this thread has run its course.