Speed of Light

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Willem, May 27, 2019.

  1. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    What does it mean to say an object travels at the speed of light through time?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    Where does it say that?
     
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Where have you read this?

    Typically, what is meant is that a stationary (in space) object still has a '4D'-velocity through spacetime: it's travelling 1 second per second.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    So, does that mean if the object ''moves'' it will be travelling ''slower'' in time? so to speak? Are we talking of rate of ageing?
     
  8. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    See, that's why I formulated it so vague: I remember hearing about this, but I don't remember any of the details involved. Hence my request for a source from Willem too.
     
  9. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,329
    I just had a look into a Brian Greene book.
    But in the end it all relative, hence the twins. One stays at home the other goes on a rocket ride.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,639
    It means one is speaking of something that cannot take place.
     
  11. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    One second per second is a dimensionless number (s/s =1).
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    That is correct. So?
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,639
    No shit!
     
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,254
    The same same as 1 foot length is 1 foot length

    Circular and nonsensical

    We (scientists)* have determined the speed of light exact value is 299,792,458 metres per second

    And since we have also determined the second to be

    the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom

    and the metre to be

    the metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum

    we come full circle with 3 definitions defining each other

    * colloquial I am not a scientists

    The only one of the 3 is detectable - the radiation and exist in and of itself

    There is no second out there waiting to be found
    Likewise no metre floating about for a scientists to grab hold of and claim

    They are non existent, except as CONCEPTS

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,211
  16. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Then you could say that the object travels at speed 1 through time - odd and inconsistant.
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,108
    That's because it's a ratio.

    My scale models are 1/4 inch per foot - or 1/48 scale (no unit).

    You would not really say your object is travelling at speed 1, any more than I would say my models are scaled at 48.

    You would say your object travels at a ratio of 1:1 with the passage of time.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    (Missed your reply; sorry.)
    Ah, so that's where I got it from. I guess my username is very apt.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sweetpea likes this.
  19. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Tell me then: what is the speed-in-time of a properly functioning clock when you are in the same frame as said clock?
     
  20. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    A fool can say speed-in-time = 1.

    If it's not foolproof then there is an inconsistency.
     
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    But didn't you yourself say that in post #8 and #13?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    However, it being possible to be uttered by a fool doesn't mean it's wrong, so I don't understand what your point is.

    Please point out the inconsistency then.

    Also, I notice you've dodged my question, even though you quoted it. Can you please stop being intellectually dishonest for just a moment, and answer the question?
     
  22. Willem Banned Banned

    Messages:
    283
    Speed-in-time = -c.t_B/t_B = -c m/s.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  23. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    What is "t"? What is "t_B"?

    But I see you've now answered your own OP. You've derived speed = c, which is exactly what you were asking about, so now you know what it means. I'm glad to have helped you figure it out!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So get two clocks then; I don't see the problem?
     

Share This Page