Speed of Light

Willem said:
What does it mean to say an object travels at the speed of light through time?
Click to expand...
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.
 
NotEinstein said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
sweetpea said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
NotEinstein said:
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.
Click to expand...
I just had a look into a Brian Greene book.
Here's the leap: Einstein proclaimed that all objects in the universe are always traveling through spacetime at one fixed speed-that of light. This is a strange idea; we are used to the notion that objects travel at speeds considerably less than that of light. …... …We are presently talking about the object's combined speed through all four dimensions... ...and it is the object's speed in this generalised sense that is equal to that of light.
Click to expand...
But in the end it all relative, hence the twins. One stays at home the other goes on a rocket ride.
 
Last edited:
talanum46 said:
One second per second is a dimensionless number (s/s =1).
Click to expand...
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

:)
 
talanum46 said:
One second per second is a dimensionless number (s/s =1).
Click to expand...
That's because it's a ratio.

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

talanum46 said:
Then you could say that the object travels at speed 1 through time - odd and inconsistant.
Click to expand...

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:
Willem said:
A fool can say speed-in-time = 1.
Click to expand...
But didn't you yourself say that in post #8 and #13?:confused:

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.

Willem said:
If it's not foolproof then there is an inconsistency.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Willem said:
Speed-in-time = c.t/t_B = c or = -c.t/t_B = -c.
Click to expand...
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!:)

Willem said:
But we need two clocks to be able to say this.
Click to expand...
So get two clocks then; I don't see the problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top