Dimensions

  • 159 Replies
  • 49726 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #90 on: June 30, 2009, 11:21:30 AM »
I see it like this, technically our galaxy is moving so fast in a direction that no matter what we do we can no change our general direction or speed. At most we can slow our speed down a tiny bit.

In what frame of reference?

Maybe our time traveling is due to momentum, we can only go in one direction because we are unable to reverse our path.

Temporal momentum would be unit equivalent to mass. And how do you suppose we might obtain a source of temporal thrust without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #91 on: June 30, 2009, 11:22:25 AM »
I say the same about this current non-discussion.  Shame on you, Robosteve.  Shame on you.

There exists a frame of reference which, relative to our own, is moving backwards through time. It does not matter whether it is occupied.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #92 on: June 30, 2009, 11:34:13 AM »
I see it like this, technically our galaxy is moving so fast in a direction that no matter what we do we can no change our general direction or speed. At most we can slow our speed down a tiny bit.

In what frame of reference?

Maybe our time traveling is due to momentum, we can only go in one direction because we are unable to reverse our path.

Temporal momentum would be unit equivalent to mass. And how do you suppose we might obtain a source of temporal thrust without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy?

I believe it was instilled at the same moment as time. We have momentum, not a change in momentum, therefore there is no need for more energy to be added.

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #93 on: June 30, 2009, 11:35:29 AM »
I say the same about this current non-discussion.  Shame on you, Robosteve.  Shame on you.

There exists a frame of reference which, relative to our own, is moving backwards through time. It does not matter whether it is occupied.

Yes.  We call it "God."

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #94 on: June 30, 2009, 11:42:22 AM »
I believe it was instilled at the same moment as time. We have momentum, not a change in momentum, therefore there is no need for more energy to be added.

So basically you're saying in a very roundabout way that we can't change the direction we're moving through time just because that's how things are?

Yes.  We call it "God."

God is a superluminal reference frame?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

BOGWarrior89

  • 3793
  • We are as one.
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #95 on: June 30, 2009, 11:43:58 AM »
Yes.  We call it "God."

God is a superluminal reference frame?

How do you know it exists if it is unoccupied?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #96 on: June 30, 2009, 11:47:29 AM »
How do you know it exists if it is unoccupied?

I am assuming Special Relativity to be true. I don't consider this an unreasonable assumption.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #97 on: June 30, 2009, 06:04:27 PM »
Time travel within special relativity is impossible only because we have mass.  To travel backward in time requires a speed greater than c, which is a speed a massive object can never obtain.

To put it another another way, the "one-sided-ness" of time is only a consequence of us having mass; it does not seem to be a property of time itself.
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #98 on: June 30, 2009, 06:27:33 PM »
Time travel within special relativity is impossible only because we have mass.  To travel backward in time requires a speed greater than c, which is a speed a massive object can never obtain.

To put it another another way, the "one-sided-ness" of time is only a consequence of us having mass; it does not seem to be a property of time itself.

My momentum idea given credence. w00t.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #99 on: June 30, 2009, 07:59:03 PM »
Time travel within special relativity is impossible only because we have mass.  To travel backward in time requires a speed greater than c, which is a speed a massive object can never obtain.

To put it another another way, the "one-sided-ness" of time is only a consequence of us having mass; it does not seem to be a property of time itself.

Einstein's mass dilation idea given credence. w00t.

Fixed that for you.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #100 on: June 30, 2009, 08:00:20 PM »
Time travel within special relativity is impossible only because we have mass.  To travel backward in time requires a speed greater than c, which is a speed a massive object can never obtain.

To put it another another way, the "one-sided-ness" of time is only a consequence of us having mass; it does not seem to be a property of time itself.

Einstein's mass dilation idea given credence. w00t.

Fixed that for you.

-ignores you- woooh!

*

Sexual Harassment Panda

  • 7082
  • Now more sophisticated
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #101 on: July 07, 2009, 06:35:05 AM »
I don't see how traveling faster than light would make you go back in time.
|^^^^^^^^^^^\||_____          
|     STFU          |||""'|"""\___            O
| ______________|||___|__|__|)          -|- 
  (@)@)""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)          / \

New Flat Earth FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #102 on: July 07, 2009, 08:34:59 AM »
I don't see how traveling faster than light would make you go back in time.

If you put values of v greater than c into the Lorentz transformation equation for time dilation, you actually get a pure imaginary number. But I'm no expert on Special Relativity; I'll be studying it next semester and hopefully learn the details then.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #103 on: July 07, 2009, 12:12:24 PM »
But does imaginary imply going backward? I thought imaginary numbers were neither negative nor positive, they're just imaginary.

*

Sexual Harassment Panda

  • 7082
  • Now more sophisticated
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #104 on: July 07, 2009, 12:55:48 PM »
Traveling faster than light just means you are going really fast. There is absolutely no way you can magically go back in time. Or else you would be able to watch your self, making 2 of the same person and that would be creating matter, which you should hopefully know, is impossible.
|^^^^^^^^^^^\||_____          
|     STFU          |||""'|"""\___            O
| ______________|||___|__|__|)          -|- 
  (@)@)""""""**|(@)(@)**|(@)          / \

New Flat Earth FAQ: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30512.0

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #105 on: July 07, 2009, 01:32:09 PM »
Traveling faster than light just means you are going really fast. There is absolutely no way you can magically go back in time. Or else you would be able to watch your self, making 2 of the same person and that would be creating matter, which you should hopefully know, is impossible.
you should read up about time dialation, i'm no expert on the matter but from what i understand is that the closer an object travels to the speed of light, time for it slows.
an vir

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #106 on: July 07, 2009, 02:40:21 PM »
But does imaginary imply going backward? I thought imaginary numbers were neither negative nor positive, they're just imaginary.

I never said it did; I'm just identifying the result of putting the relevant numbers into the equation for subluminal time dilation without consideration for the physics involved.

Traveling faster than light just means you are going really fast. There is absolutely no way you can magically go back in time. Or else you would be able to watch your self, making 2 of the same person and that would be creating matter, which you should hopefully know, is impossible.

It is impossible, but that doesn't mean that an object moving faster than light won't go back in time, it just means it's not possible for an object moving more slowly than light to be accelerated to such a speed.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #107 on: July 07, 2009, 03:45:54 PM »
i'm not really an expert on relativity but the solutions found for v>c might as well only be "mathematical" solutions with no physical relevance.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #108 on: July 07, 2009, 04:16:59 PM »
This is reminding me of the xkcd comic on extrapolating, "by the second trimester you'll have hundreds of babies inside you"

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #109 on: July 07, 2009, 08:19:05 PM »
I don't see how traveling faster than light would make you go back in time.

If you put values of v greater than c into the Lorentz transformation equation for time dilation, you actually get a pure imaginary number. But I'm no expert on Special Relativity; I'll be studying it next semester and hopefully learn the details then.
Okay I have just studied relativity in my free time. No teacher and until last year I didn't even no what a Lorentz transformation was. I will learn about the basics spring semester. However I though it was mass that got an imaginary number. I though time dilation was in reverse at faster then the speed of light.
second to argue about not being able to change directions in time making it not a full dimension you still need time to be able to describe something position. 

Last random though. If time is another dimension then shouldn't we be able to measure it in units of length. I always though of time sort of like a flip book. each page being one plank second apart. so what is the distance between the pages. it makes sense to me that all dimensions would have the same minimum length so that one plank meter would be equal to one plank second. so you should be able to convert seconds to meters and vice versa. like I said a random though.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #110 on: July 08, 2009, 04:55:41 AM »
Okay I have just studied relativity in my free time. No teacher and until last year I didn't even no what a Lorentz transformation was. I will learn about the basics spring semester. However I though it was mass that got an imaginary number. I though time dilation was in reverse at faster then the speed of light.

If you put v > c into the relevant Lorentz transformation equation, you get an imaginary time. This doesn't necessarily mean anything; there may well be a more in-depth way of calculating the effect of superluminal velocities that I am not aware of.

Last random though. If time is another dimension then shouldn't we be able to measure it in units of length. I always though of time sort of like a flip book. each page being one plank second apart. so what is the distance between the pages. it makes sense to me that all dimensions would have the same minimum length so that one plank meter would be equal to one plank second. so you should be able to convert seconds to meters and vice versa. like I said a random though.

Distance and time are related by the speed of light. You would multiply one second by c to get the associated distance.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #111 on: July 15, 2009, 12:28:53 PM »
Quote
Maybe our time traveling is due to momentum, we can only go in one direction because we are unable to reverse our path.

Temporal momentum would be unit equivalent to mass. And how do you suppose we might obtain a source of temporal thrust without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy?

Please demonstrate this unit equivalency.  
Last random though. If time is another dimension then shouldn't we be able to measure it in units of length. I always though of time sort of like a flip book. each page being one plank second apart. so what is the distance between the pages. it makes sense to me that all dimensions would have the same minimum length so that one plank meter would be equal to one plank second. so you should be able to convert seconds to meters and vice versa. like I said a random though.

In order to physically measure time with a ruler one would need to be capable of freely moving forward and backward in time.  Just like a 2d being would need to be able to move up and down in the third dimension in order to measure some object that has up/down dimension.  

Or as this threads largest troll somehow got right: to get the length of the time-like component of a space-time four-vector, multiply it by 'c'.  

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #112 on: July 15, 2009, 12:32:20 PM »
Please demonstrate this unit equivalency.

Temporal velocity - that is to say, the rate at which one travels through time with respect to some frame of reference - is measured in units of seconds per second, or a dimensionless number. Spatial momentum is measured in units of mass multiplied by spatial velocity, so applying the same concept to temporal momentum we get units of mass multiplied by a pure number, or simply mass.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #113 on: July 15, 2009, 01:00:41 PM »
Hmm, that seems completely nonsensical, circular, and moot to me. 

Isn't the speed of time 'c'?  As in, the time component of the four-velocity of an object at rest,

[gamma][speed of light] = [1][speed of light]

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #114 on: July 15, 2009, 01:03:21 PM »
Hmm, that seems completely nonsensical, circular, and moot to me.

As to me. Raist was the one who brought up the concept of temporal momentum, and I mentioned that it would be unit equivalent to mass in an attempt to point this out.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 01:05:52 PM by Robosteve »
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #115 on: July 15, 2009, 01:07:50 PM »
Hmm, that seems completely nonsensical, circular, and moot to me.

As to me. Raist was the one who brought up the concept of temporal momentum, and I mentioned that it would be unit equivalent to mass in an attempt to point this out.

Yes, and since there are no forces either slowing us down through time or speeding us up that is completely meaningless. Temporarily we are in an inertial frame of reference.

Re: Dimensions
« Reply #116 on: July 15, 2009, 01:08:39 PM »
Hmm, that seems completely nonsensical, circular, and moot to me. 

Isn't the speed of time 'c'?  As in, the time component of the four-velocity of an object at rest,

[gamma][speed of light] = [1][speed of light]
I thought the speed of yourself through time is 'c'
the speed of something else through time changes by its relationship to you.
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #117 on: July 15, 2009, 01:14:23 PM »
Hmm, that seems completely nonsensical, circular, and moot to me. 

Isn't the speed of time 'c'?  As in, the time component of the four-velocity of an object at rest,

[gamma][speed of light] = [1][speed of light]
I thought the speed of yourself through time is 'c'
the speed of something else through time changes by its relationship to you.
Agreed.  At least, that is the way I understand it. 

Thusly, the time-component of four-momentum is [gamma][rest mass][speed of light], which is decidedly not unit equivalent to mass.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #118 on: July 15, 2009, 01:16:55 PM »
Yes, and since there are no forces either slowing us down through time or speeding us up that is completely meaningless. Temporarily we are in an inertial frame of reference.

Thank you for rephrasing what I said two weeks ago.

Thusly, the time-component of four-momentum is [gamma][rest mass][speed of light], which is decidedly not unit equivalent to mass.

Interesting. I've never come across the concepts of four-velocity and four-momentum before, but what you are saying makes perfect sense. Incidentally, if you don't mind explaining, how is a vector product defined in four-space?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Dimensions
« Reply #119 on: July 15, 2009, 01:23:01 PM »
Yes, and since there are no forces either slowing us down through time or speeding us up that is completely meaningless. Temporarily we are in an inertial frame of reference.

Thank you for rephrasing what I said two weeks ago.

Thusly, the time-component of four-momentum is [gamma][rest mass][speed of light], which is decidedly not unit equivalent to mass.

Interesting. I've never come across the concepts of four-velocity and four-momentum before, but what you are saying makes perfect sense. Incidentally, if you don't mind explaining, how is a vector product defined in four-space?

I was simply explaining why we could not travel any direction but forward. Momentum.