I think it must have some physical reality. As I sit here, mostly not moving KNOW I am traveling forward in time. I think it is obvious then that there are no motionless particles in four-space. In fact they all have the same velocity vector magnitude.
Next question is if the concept of "momentum" applies to four-space. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Andrew Rodland <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, the math works out. Whether it actually has physical meaning is > kind of a philosophical question, but it's a useful tool. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time#Examples_in_special_relativity > is an example worth looking at. > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Chris Albertson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Is this a valid TN subject? It's about time but a little off of the usual >> subject of 10Mhz oscillators. >> >> I heard of an alternate way to describe time dilation caused by velocity. >> I think this makes it easier to understand but I've not been able to >> verify the math. This alternate explanation also makes it easy to see why >> we can never go faster than light. But I've not seen a mathematical >> derivation so it could be wrong or just an approximation. >> >> Here goes: >> >> 1) We assume a 4 dimensional universe with four orthogonal axis, x, y, z, >> and time (t) >> 2) assume that at all times EVERY object always has a velocity vector who's >> magnitude is "c", the speed of light. The magnitude of this vector (speed) >> never changes and is the same for every particle in the universe. >> >> This at first seems a radical statement but how is moving at c much >> different from assuming every partial is at rest in t's own reference >> frame? I've just said it is moving at c in it's own reference frame. Both >> c and zero are arbitrary speeds selected for connivance. >> >> How can this be? I know I'm sitting in front of my computer and have not >> moved an inch in the last four hours. c is faster than that. Yes you are >> stationary in (x,y,z) but along the t axis you are moving one second per >> second and I define one second per second as c. Now you get smart and try >> to move faster than c by pushing your chair backward in the Y direction at >> 4 inches per second. So you THINK your velocity magnitude is the vector >> sum of c and 4 inch/sec which is greater than c. BUT NO. Your speed >> along Y axis causes time dilation such that your speed along T is now >> slower than 1 second/second. In fact if you push your chair backward >> along Y real fast at exactly c your speed along t axis is zero, time >> stops. Try pushing your chair at 0.7071 * c and you find yourself moving >> through t at 0.7071 sec/sec and the vector sum is c. You can NOT change >> you speed from c all you can do to change the direction of the velocity >> vector and your speed through time is determined by the angle between that >> vector and the t axis. >> >> It works ok to just use one of the three spacial axis because we can always >> define them such that (say) the Y axis points in the direction of motion. >> So a plot of your speed in the dy,t plane covers the general case and looks >> like an arc of radius c. >> >> If this works out then I have some work to do, like defining momentum as a >> function of the area between the velocity vector and the t axis >> >> >> -- >> >> Chris Albertson >> Redondo Beach, California >> _______________________________________________ >> time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts >> and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. -- Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
