Ok, lets say we found a way to travel at the speed of light through space... could we go faster? The fastest thing that the human race knows of is light, and according to the String Theory (Is that the right theory?), if we went faster than the speed of light, we would exist in a different dimension. In this dimension, there are 3 determining factors... latitude,longitude,and time. Any thoughts on this?

I forgot to post: According to some of my friends, and my step-father, by going faster than the speed of light, we would simply be messing with another variable... the fabric of space and time itself. That much energy in mass would definetely mess with time and space. Perhaps the speed of light and faster is the difference between the fastest we can go before time travel?

no thoughts?

According to General Relativity, if you travel faster than the speed of light, time would reverse direction. In other words, existence at a speed greater than the speed of light will result in time flowing from the future to the past. Your time flow would take you into the past.

Theoretically, the tachyon particle exists at a speed greater than the speed of light. If it exists, it travels from the future into the past. Although a tachyon particle hasn't been discovered yet.

I think we would be changing the time factor of spacetime. My understanding is spacetime would remain the same but simply with a reversal of time flow.

What I find interesting is considering the consequences of existence at the speed of light. Time ceases...ends...disappears at the speed of light. That is more mindboggling to me than traveling faster than the speed of light.

Yeh and just think, those poor familiar light rays u encounter every day experience no time whatsoever!

So John, tell me what happens to time at the speed of light according to General Relativity.

Then tell me what consequences flow from a lack of time when considering energy (including light} and force carriers all exist at the speed of light.

[quote] Yeh and just think, those poor familiar light rays u encounter every day experience no time whatsoever! [quote]

You are right and don't even realize it....

Originally posted by Jagger
So John, tell me what happens to time at the speed of light according to General Relativity.

Time stops at the speed of light. If u travelled at the speed of light u would experience no time.

Then tell me what consequences flow from a lack of time when considering energy (including light} and force carriers all exist at the speed of light.

I dont quite know what consequences u want me to explain. Can u provide some if u know of any to help me here?

You are right and don't even realize it....

Im always right (almost) but I do usually realize when I'm right. Perhaps YOU didn't realise I was right :rolleyes:

Then tell me what consequences flow from a lack of time when considering energy (including light} and force carriers all exist at the speed of light.
No consequences because without time, noting happens!

The original post asked
Ok, lets say we found a way to travel at the speed of light through space... could we go faster?

I don't see how that can be answered. If you assume the laws of phyics can be violated (in order to travel AT the speed of light) what are you left with to answer the question?

Seems to me the only reasonable answer would be "Yes, and pig could fly!"

Jagger wrote:
>Theoretically, the tachyon particle exists at a speed greater than the speed of light. If it exists, it travels from the future into the past. Although a tachyon particle hasn't been discovered yet.

So if tachyons have a reversed timeline, obviously they must be undetectable from within a "normal" timeline (from past to future).

An object in a reversed timeline would have only one single intersection with our timeline... infinitely short, so undetectable.

It's similar to trying to observe a car coming nearer in reverse direction on a road. To follow it we must turn our head. But I cannot turn the head because I must observe the traffic in front of me, while driving.

In the same way, we cannot reverse our timeline to further observe the tachyon...

Conclusion:
impossibility to proove the existance or non-existance of tachyons.

according to relativistic particle mechanics, a particle traveling faster than light (a tachyon) would exhibit some strange properties. if would speed up as it lost energy, for example.

people have said in this thread that it would travel backwards in time, but i am not sure this is correct. if i use the naïve time dilation formula to see what happens to time in the reference frame of this particle, i must conclude that time in this reference frame is imaginary. i do not know how to interpret what that means, physically. probably i wouldn t see the particle experiencing time at all, like the case for the photon.

we already know particles that are going backwards: the antiparticle.

what is true is that if i see the particle depart from point A and arrive later at point B, there are normal slower than light people who will see it arrive at point B before it departs point A. so my friend would conclude that it is traveling backwards in time, but i would still see it moving forwards in time.

however, particle physics is not a correct description of the universe, according to modern theories. all matter moves in quantum waves, and in this setting, the tachyon is a little different. a tachyon in quantum field theory is a particle traveling away from a maximum of some background potential.

this potential had better be bounded below, or else the vacuum is unstable, and the entire universe will disappear in a flash. small quantum perturbations from this maximum exhibit exponential growth (instead of oscillations like any well behaved wave), and blow up until the field is near some minimum, at which point the field acts like a normal particle. the field is not able to transfer energy faster than light, even when the particle is near this maximum.

from the context of quantum field theory, i would say that no particles can move faster than light, not even tachyons.

30-40 years ago, some researchers got a grant to set up an experiment to detect tachyons, whose existence and properties are compatible with relativity. Some of their properties are alleged to be as follows. They generate Cherenkov radiation, which is expected to occur when any particle travels faster than the speed of light. Note that this is possible and has been observed. In a medium with a refractive index greater than one, light travels slower than it does in a vacuum. In such a medium, it is possible for a particle to beat a light ray without going faster than light speed in a vacuum. Tachyons travel backwards in time. If a tachyon gains energy, it slows down. The speed of light is a lower limit to its speed. If a tachyon loses energy, it speeds up, with no theoretical upper bound to its speed, although I suppose there might be a reason that it cannot have zero energy and infinite speed.The experimenters expected to detect the Cherenkov radiation if tachyons were generated by the experiment.

Martin Gardiner, in his Scientific American Mathematical Games column pointed out a paradox. If detected, the Cherenkov radiation would occur before the experimental apparatus was turned on. If the radiation was detected, the experimenters could decide not to activate the apparatus, in which case, the already detected radiation could not have occurred. Due to the SciAm article, the experiments were terminated.

No modern physicist expects tachyons to exist.

I dont quite know what consequences u want me to explain. Can u provide some if u know of any to help me here?

Charles, if you think it through there are some staggering consequences IMO. But rather than give you my thoughts, this is an excellent opportunity to try an Einstein thought experiment.

Pretend you are pure energy or light or a force carrier. You exist at the speed of light. Time doesn't exist within your reality at the speed of light. As light, how would you perceive the material universe?

If a tachyon loses energy, it speeds up, with no theoretical upper bound to its speed, although I suppose there might be a reason that it cannot have zero energy and infinite speed.

That is an interesting observation. I wonder if matter can exist without energy? Perhaps not, thus providing an upper bound preventing infinite speed?

I think there are some misunderstandings and/or erroneous statements posted here.

First, antiparticles do not travel backwards in time, although there have been articles relating to particle interactions which might cause a person to think that antiparticles travel backwards in time. I think that such interpretations are erroneous. I have read accounts like the following. When a positron is created in a particle accelerator, it soon encounters an electron. The encounter destroys both particles and results in gamma radiation. The Feynman diagram for this process shows both the positron and the electron traveling forward in time until the encounter. An interpretation of the Feynman diagram consistent with particle physics would be an electron traveling forward in time and being bounced backward in time (? How/why?) resulting in gamma radiation. The electron traveling backward in time would appear to be a positron traveling forward. At one time, it was believed that the mirror image of every particle reaction was a possible particle reaction. It was also believed that a charge reversed universe would be indistinguishable from our ordinary universe. It was also believed that a time reversed version of every particle reaction was also a possible particle reaction. Then some discrepancies in these beliefs were discovered. These principles were revised to state that a particle reaction for which time, charge, and parity (mirror imaging) were all reversed was a possible reaction.Discussions similar to the above can be misinterpreted, resulting in a belief that antiparticles move backwards in time.

Second, Relativity deals with the concept of an interval between two events, and discourages statements about time independent of distance and vice versa. The square of the interval is determined by squaring the distance between the events and subtracting the square of the time interval between the events, using units for which the velocity of light is equal to one. Using ordinary units, multiply the time interval by the speed of light before squaring and subtracting.

The interval between events is constant for all observers, while the distance and time interval are different for observers in different inertial reference frames. For events along the path of a photon, the interval is zero, but it is not clear to me that this implies that time stops.

For an inertial frame moving at the speed of light, the Lorentz Transformation formulae for both time and distance have a zero in the denominator. I do not know how to apply the Lorentz transformation when velocity equals the speed of light, so I do not know how to interpret statements about the proper time for a photon. I am suspicious of all statements about time only or distance only. Perhaps, both distance and time contract to zero for a photon when viewed from our inertial frame. Perhaps the photons sees all events along its path as occurring at the same place and at the same time.

I think we need some clarification by a real expert in relativity.

!Yeh and just think, those poor familiar light rays u encounter every day experience no time whatsoever!

I know this may border on the ridiculous but if Light speed is in fact experiencing no time then how can it be said to be traveling?

( Ha.... I couldn't resist:D )

I happen to hold the view that light doesn't travel at all as two dimensional space prohibits distance therefore time to travel that distance.

Perhaps, both distance and time contract to zero for a photon when viewed from our inertial frame. Perhaps the photons sees all events along its path as occurring at the same place and at the same time.

I happen to hold the view that light doesn't travel at all as two dimensional space prohibits distance therefore time to travel that distance.

My thoughts tend to follow both these statements. The Lorentz contraction effectively gets rid of one physical dimension (distance) at the speed of light. From the perspective of pure energy, we lose both time and distance leaving two physical dimensions. Which leads to some interesting results. If your consciousness could exist at light speed, you would be able to travel instantaneously anywhere within the physical universe-past, present or future. Or perhaps, you would exist simultaneously everywhere within the universe-past, present or future. Assuming the lack of time and Lorentz Contraction effects of General Relatively are correct, this is how I would expect pure energy/light and the force carriers to experience our physical universe.

I believe we are left with two options in regards to time considering the consequences of GR. One, we are left with all physical past, present and future events co-existing and occuring simultaneously. This would mean only the present actually exists. Time would then be purely a subjective illusion rather than a dimension. Although the problem of perceived continuity then arises.

A second possibility has time as a fixed dimension in which past, present and future all coexist simultaneously but occupy different spacetime locations. With this possibility, time is truly a dimension but is more a fixed than fluid dimension as we perceive it from within spacetime. Although it helps to bear in mind that not even 3d space is truly fixed. Under the right extreme conditions, 3d space is also fluid-remember the Lorentz contraction effect. However this solution would raise questions concerning free will.

I think it helps to define time and its properties of existence. Einstein saw time as the interval between physical cause and effect. We measure that interval as time. Thus time is inextricable tied to physical events. So physical time can only exist with matter and space. Another way of reaching the conclusion that physical time cannot exist at light speed is to remember that matter cannot exist at the speed of light. Matter must convert to pure energy before reaching light speed. Without matter, physical events cannot occur, thus physical time cannot exist at the speed of light.

Another interesting thought to bear in mind is there may be more forms of time beyond physical time. A form of time may exist independent of physical time-a non-physical or subjective time. A non-physical time would be a measure of change independent of physical change. A non-physical time isn't necessarily eliminated at light speed by GR because Einstein used physical time as defined by physical cause and effect. GR doesn't consider any other form of time.

I would like to thank everyone that posted a comment on this post. These responses have helped me very much!

Originally posted by Dinosaur
No modern physicist expects tachyons to exist.

"We are beginning an experiment at Berkeley to detect tachyon-like quasiparticles. There are strong scientific reasons to believe that such quasiparticles really exist, because Maxwell's equations, when coupled to inverted atomic media, lead inexorably to tachyon-like solutions.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000657D8-67D9-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3

Ivan Seeking: Read the article you cited carefully. They are not talking about the tachyons which travel backwards in time or are afraid to mention this aspect of the relativity equations.

Note that your quote uses the term tachyon-like.

They seem to be applying the term tachyon to phenomenon like EPR entangled particles and tunneling effects which seem to act over distances at greater than light speeds. EPR entangled particles and tunnelling effects do not involve anything remotely like the tachyons described by relativity equations.

John Connellan,

Im always right (almost) but I do usually realize when I'm right. Perhaps YOU didn't realise I was right

I thought I made a mistake once but I was mistaken.:D

Originally posted by Dinosaur
Note that your quote uses the term tachyon-like.

That's why I quoted that particular sentence. These are not the same animal proposed years ago, but they would have the same paradoxical nature.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
That's why I quoted that particular sentence. These are not the same animal proposed years ago, but they would have the same paradoxical nature.

no, not at all. the fields that govern particle dynamics exist in some background potential. those potentials should be bounded below, or else either physics is completely wrong (which it is not), or else the universe will disappear in a flash of light on the order of 10^-30 seconds (which it does not).

nevertheless, the potential can have local maxima, and still be bounded below. in regions where the potential has a local maximum, the field acts like a tachyon. even in this region, there is not energy transfered faster than light. all that happens is that the "vacuum" is not stable (it is not actually a true vacuum in this case).

no contradictions arise at all.

Originally posted by lethe
even in this region, there is not energy transfered faster than light. all that happens is that the "vacuum" is not stable (it is not actually a true vacuum in this case).

no contradictions arise at all.

How would this explain entanglement? The entire point is that information must be transferred [almost] instantly; independent of distance.

I do see your point about boundedness...I think. You are saying that since it is bounded, we avoid many of the paradoxes suggested by the original tachyon model?

Faster then the speed of light
its the name of a book i wasa just wondering if any of you have ever read it.

Talking of the speed of light still, how does anyone know that the speed of light is the fastest we can go, or the fastest that anything goes? Maybe we cannot detect anything that goes faster?

I still think there may be something faster than the speed of light.

caffeine_fubar,

Talking of the speed of light still, how does anyone know that the speed of light is the fastest we can go, or the fastest that anything goes?

Almost all motion in the universe is caused by two of the four fundamental interactions: the electromagnetic and the gravitational. If you believe in relativity then you know that there are two reasons that the electromagnetic interaction can't push an object to a speed faster than light:

1) The objects mass will increase with its relative velocity. Since the relative mass of an object (with mass) is infinite at c, an infinite amount of energy would be required to push, or pull, an object to c.

2) If the object is being pushed from behind by electromagnetic waves, the energy of the electromagnetic waves will decrease as a result of the redshifting of the waves resulting from the increased velocity of the object relative to the source of the radiation. This means that the faster the object is moving away from the source of the radiation, the smaller the frequency, and therefore the energy, of the waves that are impacting the object.

If, however, you don't believe in relativity, then not only will transfer of energy from electromagnetic waves decrease as the object is moving away from the source of the radiation due to redshifting, but also the the number of waves impacting the object will decrease because of the decreased speed of the waves relative to that object. So for example, if an object was travelling at c, electromagnetic radiation wouldn't be able to "catch up" to the object at all.

Now as for the gravitational interaction, if you assume that gravity is caused by an exchange of light-speed particles (gravitons), then you have the same problems I described above with the electromagnetic interaction. However, if a gravitational field is only a static extension of matter, and not an exchange of gravitons, then, if relativity wasn't valid, it might be possible to push an object to a speed faster than c in a gravitational field. But even in that case, it's likely that the delay in the gravitational interaction (since we shouldn't assume that interactions are instantaneous) will result in limiting the maximum speed an object can reach by interacting with a gravitational field.

By the way, don't take my opinions to seriously. Many of my opinions differ from what is accepted by the scientific community.

I think that everyone seems to have a different opinion on this matter... but most seem to agree that it is impossible to travel faster...

Perhaps out minds are not capable of understanding or viewing what is really there and what is really happening or capable of happening. Maybe crazy people are the only ones who understand, and thats why they are so crazy, because their brains cannot handle the truth. ( lol had to put that )

Perhaps out minds are not capable of understanding or viewing what is really there and what is really happening or capable of happening. Maybe crazy people are the only ones who understand, and thats why they are so crazy, because their brains cannot handle the truth. ( lol had to put that )

You don't need to be crazy, you just need to accept the limits of our physical theories. They cannot go there, so the question is not scientific.

Bye!

Crisp

Faster we go, the slower time goes. This has been proved using jets and nuclear clocks. If this is true, and time stops at the speed of light, then perhaps going the speed of light cause you to actually go BACK in time?

No, time is not reversing it has just stopped. U cannot go back in time like u say and change the past!

I think the reason why time slows is that the velocity of the moving object relative to the universe is actually the velocity plus "c".the object is already traveling faster than 'c' which is why time slows........

rest mass is "c" anything more is 'c' plus

This is theory development in progress so please don't get to upset.......

No, time is not reversing it has just stopped. U cannot go back in time like u say and change the past!

I never said time was reversing and i never said anything about changing the past... What is said was that time SLOWS as you go faster, and supposedly stops once you have reached the speed of light. If you could you possibly in any way go faster than the speed of light, could you maybe go backwards in time or warp time?

The equations of relativity require reversal of the time variable for particles traveling faster than light. No knowledgeable physicist believes that the equations are applicable to any real world phenomenon.

30-40 or so years ago, tachyon research was halted when it was recognized that evidence of success (Cherenkov radiation) would be observable prior to starting the experiment. If the radiation was observed, they could decide not to perform the experiment. This would allow them to publish a paper describing a successful experiment without having actually done the experiment.

The situation is analogous to the equations relating to certain word problems. The equations sometimes have negative or imaginary solutions which are not applicable to the problem although one solution is the correct answer.

An example is a problem involving n men on an island dividing up coconuts For n = 5, each counts the pile and divides by five, getting a remainder of one. Each discards the extra coconut and takes his share, leaving the remainder for the nest man. Minus four is a phoney solution. If you discard one coconut, you get minus five. Make two piles: Your share (-1) and the rest (-4), leaving minus 4 for the next man. The phoney solution works in an abstract fashion, but is not a real world situation.

Applying relativity equations to tachyon-like particles is analogous to the above. The equations just do not describe a valid real world phenomenon.

actually in a way it is the impossibility of time reversal that adds credibility to relativity because it puts 'c' in and absolute position as a constant.

As long as moition exists time will exsit.

Sans absolute zero, time can not be stoped.

Time tarvel is fundementaly impossible.

excellent convo... but now my head hurts.

It really would be fantastic though to have a GUT and know this stuff for sure.

We travel in time right now. All we have to do is figure out how to alter the direction.

i'd love to travel sideways through it...... or be it... stay still?

but surely you can't go back in time...

theoretically if you travel faster than light, you could see "past" light, images of things that have happened... but you couldn't act in that past that you'd see, and you'd not be able to change it. You'd merely be an observer. No?

We travel in time right now. All we have to do is figure out how to alter the direction.

I think this is an excellent observation :)

by going faster then light we would not change dementions maybe we would relize the exestence of a forth demention. but use this little example. There is this type of animal that lives on the bottom of a fish tank. it cant see anything exsept what is in his light of sight, across one x axis there for y and z are unknows to him. We as humans can watch this little animal move around but to him he is still in 1d even through above him is move and to his right and his left there is more. He is in a 3d world with out knowing it. The same idea could be aplayed to humans we might live in a 4d wourld and not know it. maybe light its self is the 4th demention or maybe not.

there is a fouth dimension... time :S there are at least 12 or something, yeah?

the 4th has never been proven to be time
Enstin therized that it was time but is still just a theroy

Does that mean that Movement is just a theory?.....( chuckles)
Actually some philosophers might think this.....movement or the perception of such just being a subjective state....etc etc ...

the 4th has never been proven to be time

This statement by itself exhibits on your behalf a complete misunderstanding of all theories in physics.

I can have a theory where mass can be a dimension. It is just another degree of freedom.

maybe light its self is the 4th demention or maybe not.

And what may I ask does this exactly mean, I mean can you explain how light could be considered to be an extra dimension.

Mdhislaer: The following is nonsense, indicating a lack of knowledge about the mathematics of relativity.the 4th has never been proven to be time Enstin therized that it was time but is still just a theroyThe mathematics of relativity uses (x, y, z, t) as the 4D coordinates of what is called an event, where (x, y, z) are 3D space coordinates and t is the time at which an event occurred.

The mathematics is a model which does a very good job of describing the laws of physics. This model treats the laws of physics as describing geometric objects in a 4D space. A moving point-like particle becomes a static curve in a 4D space.

Note that two coordinates are required for 2D geometry, three for 3D geometry, and four for 4D geometry. (x, y, z, t) looks like the coordinates of a point in a 4D space.

The mathematics of 4D geometry is used as the mathematics of physics. This is a very useful method of dealing with the laws of physics.

It is not necessary to think of time as a fourth dimension. It just happens to be a handy way of dealing with the laws of physics.

I must admit When I first came to sciforums I was under the impression that the word dimension meant something other than what physics would define it as.

Dimension by philosophical definition or dimension by physics definition are very different.

If I am not mistaked in physics the word dimension referes to a "measurement"

Where as Dimension in Philosophy can mean ( an alternative reality or universe)

essentially to go faster than the speed of light, you would indeed have to shift into another dimension , if only for a few nanoseconds; and yet you might not even register this shift in your conscious perception.

also, there is the factor of this higher dimensions and the effects it has on bodies etc.
if you are going to travel a long ways, meaning spend time in that time-independent dimension as you cut thru time; you better be spiritually mature enough, or else you will fall unconscious when you enter this other 'dimension' or 'plane' where time is frozen so to speak.

this dimension, like the higher ones above it, are almost invisible to the ones below it. this means there is even less communication between dimensions further apart, such as 3rd and 5th. they do cross sometimes, rarely. some of us can kind of comprehend it, others cannot. its because its another step, another plane of existance that we havent experienced in our lives, we cannot reference to anything similar.
we do, however have some exceptions, of course.

Too many mushrooms for zonabi I think.

unfortunately Zonabi, as I stated earlier the word domension can be used in the manner you refer to......however because this is a Physics Forum it has no real relevance if anything because there is an inability to prove or measure using scientific methods the dimensions you speak of....there for it is more a matter of philosophy or theosophy and maybe better discussed there.....

the 4th has never been proven to be time
Enstin therized that it was time but is still just a theroy


Theory means prooved, or with enough evidence to be accepted until a better alternative comes along.

"innocent till proven guilty" :p

U are all wrong.
You cannot superceed the speed of light using classical physics (e.g. general and special relativity.)because to propel any thing with mass to the speed of light you need an infinite amount of energy to do that. And if energy was ifinite then within every particlte in the universe an ifinte amount of energy would be held.
The theorys of going faster than light speed are often vague and in the end proved wrong.
The dimesion thing quantum physics predicts up to 20 dimension but most are to small to be noticed or even harnessed. The funny thing about these dimensions is that stuff can come out but not go in.

an interesting perspective....maybe.....
"The universe is changing at the rate of 'c'. The photon is travelling at the rate of 'c' so how fast if the photon travelling relative to the change occuring around it?

the photon is effectively stationary relative to the universe's rate of change (through time)

so when we meaure the speed of light what are we measuring?

an interesting perspective....maybe.....
"The universe is changing at the rate of 'c'. The photon is travelling at the rate of 'c' so how fast if the photon travelling relative to the change occuring around it?

the photon is effectively stationary relative to the universe's rate of change (through time)

so when we meaure the speed of light what are we measuring?
When you say that "the universe is changing at the rate of c," what exactly do you mean by that? What, specifically, is changing, and how do you obtain the rate of 3 x 10^8 meters/second for it?

When you say that "the universe is changing at the rate of c," what exactly do you mean by that? What, specifically, is changing, and how do you obtain the rate of 3 x 10^8 meters/second for it?
Brandon, I have started a new thread titled "'c' - what are we actually measuring?"

I hope it answers your questions and I look forward to your response

I think the force for you travel faster than the speed- o- light would be unattainable. But if it was I think time would become nonexistant, frozen. Also to travel the light speed you have to be the light, shape and size. It is a matter of space dynamics. Now if matter could absorb the gravity instead of release it, then time could reverse!

you can't go faster than instantaneous either

suppose there existed a temporal mass that we are all accelerating towards along the axis of time. not unlike how a stone falls to earth completely incapable of slowing down its fall and preventing its impact.

Could be a confusing issue- if it was possible to travel at v=c. But just for the sake of discussion, special relativity dictates that when we look at a moving frame of reference we see clocks moving with it running slow and yet (because of sync) we are traveling into the future of that frame. That is, we travel into that frame's future faster than those traveling with the frame.
So, if we were to attain v=c, we should see all 'stationary' clocks stop and we should see them out of sync more than ever. It seems we should also be traveling into the future of the 'stationary' frame faster than ever, not the past.
I could be wrong, but I think most people who state that our time would reverse are not considering the relativity of syncronization. :m:

anything with mass cannot travel at c...what am I missing here... :confused:

Today , many people have been too much deeply in theory world and the others do not understand what they have said . We do not know what is right and what is wrong .

People like to talk about the speed of light , but perhaps do not know what is a reference frame . I think we should talk about the speed of a body in the system , it is useless we talk the speed of the system relative to its native body or the speed of a remote body relative to another remote bady , such as the Earth relative to a fly or a car in china relative to another car in USA .

Speed maybe divided into two kinds , kinetic speed and dynamic speed . We have found for long time that peope do not like to distinguish these two kinds of speed .

What's the difference between "kinetic speed" and "dynamic speed"?

If Alice read all the posts in this thread, she would say curiouser and curiouser. I prefer weireder and weirder, with only a few rational statements.

Dynamic speed is with influence and kinetic speed is without it . Kinetic speed may be used only in calculating the diatance .

Dynamic speed , such as a clock moving in the gravitationa field GAS of the Earth can make the clock work slowlier , but the speed of the Earth relative to the clock is kinetic speed and it can't make the Earth rotate slowlier .

What is motion ? I think it is not distance changing . Motion is a man swims in water . Saying motion is distance changing , he is a mathematician , and saying motion is a man swims in water , he is an engineer . Engineers maybe greater physicists in future days .