# World Lines & (x, y, z, t)

questions:

a) what is light travel time? Do you mean "c"?

IMO, "c" is the upper limit of an object becoming expressed in physical reality. It's against the law of physics to go faster. It is a true constant, the boundary between physical and meta-physical (or "real" and "unknown")

b) Yes, traversing (measuring) a meter creates a duration of time, depending on the speed you are traversing that meter, but a meter has no intrinsic connection to time.

Can you measure me a meter of time? And can you give me the time of a meter?

Motion is the causal force or function, traversing a meter is causal to the creation of a relative association between motion and time, motion is in space and if at a steady rate, causes the emerge of time which can be associated with that meter. That is the definition of a world line , IMO.

Did you look at the definition of the meter?

Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

Now that was uncalled for. Do you think name calling is the way this forum should go, because some of us don't do it, and don't think it helps the forum, but instead hurts the forum. What do you think?

The nonsense posted hurts the forum in my estimation. You shouldn't expect civility when you're making a fool of yourself. Lots of that going on around here.

The nonsense posted hurts the forum in my estimation. You shouldn't expect civility when you're making a fool of yourself. Lots of that going on around here.
I'm not sure that making a fool of one's self is license for someone else to become uncivil, but I do think maybe it is a matter of style. I don't do it, you do it. Maybe no harm is done if everyone follows their own style.

Personal feelings and fairy tales are what Einstein brought to the table. I bring hardcore truth!

Quit making a fool of yourself Motor Daddy. You bring hardcore ignorance dude. You generate 0 respect in this forum. That means something dude.

Quit making a fool of yourself Motor Daddy. You bring hardcore ignorance dude. You generate 0 respect in this forum. That means something dude.

I generate hits! That's important too!

People come from all over the world to read my stuff!

You're reading it too, Bruce. I'm in your head, so you should stop reading and responding to my posts, so as to ensure that I don't make a lasting impact that you can't forget! I'll be stuck in your memory for a long long time! You'll probably think about me when you're dreaming too! That sucks, eh?

I generate hits! That's important too!

People come from all over the world to read my stuff!
Lol, you are a bit "out there" tonight. Don't start trying to get everyone mad and make this devolve to a name calling thread, if you can resist it.

I bet you are wondering who appointed me to be your guide :shrug:.

I'm not sure that making a fool of one's self is license for someone else to become uncivil, but I do think maybe it is a matter of style. I don't do it, you do it. No harm done.

If you weren't here there would be less opportunity to be discouraged by the incessant nonsense [at least for me]. You're a perfect example of someone who is in love with there own nonsense. The less you know about the science of cosmology the easier it is to stay in love.

I bet you are wondering who appointed me to be your guide :shrug:.

I take any and all advice. Some I use and some I discard.

It is good to be able to know the difference between speculation and fact. I know the difference, and so do you. So is it wrong to talk about our individual speculations among ourselves, in the proper forum?

No it's not wrong to be able to talk about speculation. In fact I quite enjoy it.
The problem now in this forum, is we have three people claiming to have a ToE, and each has put it as fact.
I mean in all reality, what do you want others to do....
They claim 100% faitre complei certainty in their hypothesis....
They have grossly misinterpreted other reputable people in a manner to gain support....
They have taken other remarks by reputable people out of context....
They decry the scientific method....
They decry peer review...
And sadly they have deceived and lied at times.
Then they claim victim status when others try and rectify their nonsense.

So how do others handle this sort of conduct.
You tell me.

You just wonder, but don't write down what you speculate about when you wonder? Do you think that speculating is akin to claiming to rewrite cosmology, or would it be possible for someone to have their own ideas about the cosmology as they wonder about it?Saying the current theory is the limit of our knowledge is a bit presumptuous. Maybe what you know is the current theory, but theory is not knowledge; you have knowledge of the theory.

I have E-Mailed people such as Hawking, Begalman, Sir Martin Rees and Michio Kaku in seeking answers and thoughts on my speculation. eg: I speculate that our BB is actually the arse end of a White hole, or out pouring of space originating from another Universe...I speculate that BH singularities may lead to ERB and wormholes, finally out pouring into a newly created Universe.
As a layman, I recognise my limitations and listen to those of my peers that are an authority in that discipline.
As a layman, I don't believe anyone with a model they claim certainty on, would be coming to a froum such as this.
Logically they would be spreading their knowledge and thoughts among their true peers in that discipline, and submit them selves to peer review.

I hope that gives you a better insight as to where I'm coming from.

yes,
Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

Yes the answer is that we can indeed provide the duration of light traveling 1 meter. But that is because we have already measured it and using a physical constant made a caculation. It is a convenient theoretical measurement, but it does not fundamentally show any special connection between "c" and a meter.

I have E-Mailed people such as Hawking, Begalman, Sir Martin Rees and Michio Kaku in seeking answers and thoughts on my speculation. eg: I speculate that our BB is actually the arse end of a White hole, or out pouring of space originating from another Universe...I speculate that BH singularities may lead to ERB and wormholes, finally out pouring into a newly created Universe.

I speculate they didn't waste their time responding with anything other than maybe a "thanks for the email" from the 10 year old they have responding to people's emails like yours. They don't have time for your nonsense.

I hope that gives you a better insight as to where I'm coming from.
Yes, it does. Interesting. Thanks.

yes,

Yes the answer is that we can indeed provide the duration of light traveling 1 meter. But that is because we have already measured it and using a physical constant made a caculation. It is a convenient theoretical measurement, but it does not fundamentally show any special connection between "c" and a meter.

Regardless of the rate that light travels in space, the length of the path at t=1 second is 299,792,458 meters. Did you take that into account when you thought about it?

I speculate they didn't waste their time responding with anything other than maybe a "thanks for the email" from the 10 year old they have responding to people's emails like yours. They don't have time for your nonsense.

You havn't a clue MD, and that is the truth.
Replies, full personal replies were received from Kaku, and Begalman, and Hawking [via a helper]
Nothing from Rees or Thorne.

But I'm thinking of writing a book of pseudoscientific nonsense, so any chance of E-Mailing you?

yes,

Yes the answer is that we can indeed provide the duration of light traveling 1 meter. But that is because we have already measured it and using a physical constant made a caculation. It is a convenient theoretical measurement, but it does not fundamentally show any special connection between "c" and a meter.

Correct.

But I'm thinking of writing a book of pseudoscientific nonsense, so any chance of E-Mailing you?

No. I avoid pseudo-scientific nonsense at all costs! I hear Discovery Channel has a bunch of those type people that might be interested in your email.

Regardless of the rate that light travels in space, the length of the path at t=1 second is 299,792,458 meters. Did you take that into account when you thought about it?

And where does that get you? And if I do not travel at "c", then what?

questions:

a) what is light travel time? Do you mean "c"?

IMO, "c" is the upper limit of an object becoming expressed in physical reality. It's against the law of physics to go faster. It is a true constant, the boundary between physical and meta-physical (or "real" and "unknown")

b) Yes, traversing (measuring) a meter creates a duration of time, depending on the speed you are traversing that meter, but a meter has no intrinsic connection to time.

Can you measure me a meter of time? And can you give me the time of a meter?

Motion is the causal force or function, traversing a meter is causal to the creation of time, motion is in space and if at a steady rate, causes the emerge of time (a duration) which can be associated with that meter. That is the definition of a world line , IMO.

Hopefully you recognize that Motor Daddy is an auto mechanic who found his way here, surprised to discover that there is a field of physics called Mechanics which has nothing to do with the difference between a #1 and a #2 screwdriver. For some reason he likes to join physics discussions and play the crank.

Question: in your accounting work, did you ever encounter derivatives (from differential calculus)? That's the level of material that has Farsight stumped. Like Motor Daddy, he is out of his element here. He doesn't have the aptitude of a car mechanic, but he seems to have the vocational training of a person in advertising--one who keeps trying to pawn useless junk thru the manipulation of words rather than through science.

Motion is defined in kinematics in terms of differential equations. It can be linear or rotational. The simplest form is linear velocity, which is the time rate of change of position with respect to time. The expression is v = dx/dt which is called a first order derivative of position with respect to time. Linear acceleration is defined as the first derivative of the velocity, a = dv/dt, which yields the second order derivative of position with respect to time: d[sup]2[/sup]x/dt[sup]2[/sup].

Thus the nonsensical remark that space and time are somehow unrelated simply because v = dx/dt rather than v = dt/dx (we have to interpolate here since Farsight isn't able to think this through) is just a bizarre attempt to parade his ignorance of first principles. Understanding those first principles is the level of competency normally required on the college entrance exams for students attempting to enroll in a science or engineering degree plan.

Note, we could have just as well cast this in terms of linear acceleration, or angular velocity, or angular acceleration. None of this even crossed Farsight's mind, because the advertising vocation doesn't even use college entrance exams, unless it's taken under a college of Business--which certainly doesn't expect its students to understand kinematics.

Compounding absurdity with ignorance is Farsight's pretense about understanding electromagnetics and relativity, declaring that nature must be this way or that, without ever having developed even the first year skills in differential calculus that are necessary to understand the upper division and grad school level of topics he pretends to have conquered.

Your other questions, like "does this moment in time last forever" are of a different class. Here we're no concerned with the derivative of space with respect to time, but rather, the effect of removing the time dimension from the 4D graph altogether. I think if you look at this more closely, you'll come to understand that it's equivalent to "viewing" the continuum under the constraint that time (for the observer) is standing still. In that context every moment that ever is, was or will be -- is frozen in time, in that condition Dinosaur called "the static universe". This is why we have to classify time as a dimension. None of the kinematics Farsight is alluding to "on the cool" even begins to engage until after the Big Bang.

I think if you change your language a little you can close these thoughts accurately. Instead of saying "motion creates time" you can now say "the derivatives of position with respect to time" defines motion--within the spatial and temporal dimensions of the inertial reference frame.

No. I avoid pseudo-scientific nonsense at all costs! I hear Discovery Channel has a bunch of those type people that might be interested in your email.

More to the point, you sprout pseudoscience at every opportunity.
And you could learn a heap of Discovery, because at present, you havn't a clue.
Not a good advertisement for thinking for ones self, as you like to preach.