Conservation During Time Dilation And Length Contr, Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Suspended!

That's just words. If something travelled at the speed of light, it would not experience anything during its travel. It would just move along a null geodesic of the universe until it hit something. From its perspective that collision would happen at the speed of light and happen at the time of departure. That's how physics (QCD, QED) models things which travel at the speed of light.

They don't have rich inner lives -- they are born, travel at the speed of light, and die in a brutish manner which leaves momentum and energy at the other end.

You still fail to understand.

Person A is watching Person B.

Scenario 1 : Person B is at rest relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in space for all time.

Scenario 2 : Person B is moving at the speed of light relative to Person A. Person A sees B not age but varies his position in both time and space.

This is NOT the reverse of Scenario 1. The reverse of Scenario 1 is :

Scenario 3 : Person B is moving instantaneously infinitely fast relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in time for all space.

And to give a comparison with your O Levels, I research string theory for a living and have actual experience describing Scenario 3, such things are known as instatons. Localised in time but not in space, compared to solitons, localised in space but not in time. And the t <--> x exchange in something which is actually used in string theory, it's a worldsheet symmetry.

You try to tell other people that its beyond their comprehension but you don't stop to think that perhaps it's you who isn't understanding.

Ok, Now I understand:
Suppose there is a world where everything and everyone exists at infinite speed. They would not know space as they would be moving through it very fast. They would be at rest through time so they would understand time as space: they will consider only moving faster through time an option but would not understand going beyond rest through time i.e. go faster than infinity through space as it is nonsense. They would only understand deceleration through space or acceleration through time. In our world we are moving at infinite speed through time and are at rest through space, thus, we only understand going faster through space but do not understand going beyond rest through space i.e. only acceleration through space or deceleration through time. This is because deceleration beyond rest through space is impossible as it implies going beyond infinite speed through time which is nonsense.
I was making a mistake as I got confused between Alphanumeric’s ‘Scenario 2’ and ‘Scenario 3’.
And, your sentence: ‘Suppose you are in a race and you're on the starting blocks. You hear the gun and you jump to twice the speed of light. You'll get to the end of the race fast enough to be able to turn around and see yourself start. BUT there is no way you can move such that you end up back at the start of the track before you left.’ does not coincide with an article on Wikipedia entitled ‘Sending information to one’s own past’ which says that a Person A travels in a spaceship faster than light and sends a message to Person B on earth and when he receives the reply he thinks he has received the reply before he sent the message.

No, you don't understand, and I don't think you ever will.

AlphaNumeric @ Nov 7 2009, 05:20 PM)
You still fail to understand.

Person A is watching Person B.

Scenario 1 : Person B is at rest relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in space for all time.

Scenario 2 : Person B is moving at the speed of light relative to Person A. Person A sees B not age but varies his position in both time and space.

This is NOT the reverse of Scenario 1. The reverse of Scenario 1 is :

Scenario 3 : Person B is moving instantaneously infinitely fast relative to Person A. Person A sees B at a single point in time for all space.

And to give a comparison with your O Levels, I research string theory for a living and have actual experience describing Scenario 3, such things are known as instatons. Localised in time but not in space, compared to solitons, localised in space but not in time. And the t <--> x exchange in something which is actually used in string theory, it's a worldsheet symmetry.

You try to tell other people that its beyond their comprehension but you don't stop to think that perhaps it's you who isn't understanding.

Now if Alphanumeric says that Scenario 3 is the inverse Scenario 1 then my concept of speed of a body through time being the inverse of its speed through space is correct. And, there is no need to abuse if you don't understand.

[Moderator: You are suspended 10 days]

This post has been edited by rpenner on Nov 8 2009, 08:27 PM

(muffled grunts of shocking abuse and horrendous sarcasm etc) ..... it's awesomely hard to be PC.

Pipe down dipshit. When you actually know any relativity you might then be in a position to make claims about it. You talk about mathematical properties but you don't actually know any related to relativity.

The non-Euclidean nature of space-time means the simple notion of inverses doesn't always apply. The Lorentz structure is the reason why the speed of light is a barrier to accelerating objects and if you haven't done any special relativity the subtleties will be lost on you. Hell, you don't even know any calculus so you're functionally illiterate when it comes to relativity.

You don't understand but you fail to understand that you don't understand.

First off, you started another thread on the same topic. That's a violation.
Second, you failed to use the quote facility -- or any delimitation of the quoted material -- which makes it very disappointing to see this new thread started with just four lines of text from you.
Third of all, you are comparing apples and oranges here. Since before you were talking about physics and clocks and now you are just talking about coordinates and trivial interpretations of 1/velocity. That's a foul.
Fourthly, you abused authority when you took AlphaNumberics post showing where you were wrong to invent a new claim and declare yourself right. That's an insane way to treat ideas.

Therefore you are suspended 10 days, and move another step towards eventual total banning. You will no longer be treated like a fair actor, sane but misguided adult and this thread will be merged with the former thread.

I am wondering whether KE approaching infinity cannot be conceptualized as the tendency for matter to dilate into pure space. If you look at KE as the tendency of energy to propel particles ever further from one another in space and time, then logically the unattainable ultimate limit would be absolute distance and time between particle contact, which would be impossible in a situation in which the particles have any potential to reach one another. So matter and space don't exist independently of one another then, is the conclusion I am drawing.

Since I have been playing with my crank theory of light as gravity waves today, I am wondering if light itself, rather than time travel, would be a better candidate for positing as the product of surplus energy in space. In other words, as matter approaches the speed of light, it increases in energy which may be eventually transfered into interference in the fabric of space-time itself. In other words, matter within a certain context of space-time dilation may have a maximum amount of energy it can accommodate as motion. Subsequently, any energy applied in excess of the motion limit would spill over into space-time deforming energy, which would appear as gravity waves and or light or other EM radiation.

Am I taking my new organ-grinder monkey show idea around to too many venues already?

This post has been edited by light in the tunnel on Nov 8 2009, 06:27 PM

Actually, according to SR any 'excess energy" spills over and appears as 'relativistic kinetic energy' as a result of relativistic mass. Whether that 'excess' "spills over" into space or not, it would still show up as increased resistance to acceleration...which is exactly what we call relativistic mass.

In fact the origin of inertial mass (relativistic or otherwise) has not yet been definitively determined to be intrinsic to the matter itself, and may very well be EXtrinsic, being a function of the surrounding space itself.

See here for example ( 5th box down) of the standard formulation...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...tiv/releng.html

Lunar

This post has been edited by Lunarlanding on Nov 9 2009, 01:33 AM