time existence at light speed

[Zweistein]

It is understood that at light speed time stops. You imagine you accelerate from speed zero to light speed. At the light speed time stops: t = 0.
Where time is gone at the light speed ?

First you travel in space and in time. Near light speed you travel only in space....where time is gone ?

 

[mathman]

Since you can't go at light speed, we can talk only about near light speed. In that case you are near light speed to another reference frame. In your own frame time goes along as normal. However, the difference in clocks explains the twin paradox.

 

[Zweistein]

twin paradox means only that clocks run slower in a fast spaceship than on the earth,
regardless of the observer, experiments show that clock run slower in airplane than on the earth, for all observers, there is no “time shrinking” which causes that clocks run slower, time is not part of space, space is 4D,
X4 = ict where t is "tick" of clock in space only (not in time)

please explain how time as a 4-th dimension of space causes that mechanism of clock runs slower ?

how is with photon ?
moves photon only in space or it moves also in time ?

 

[James R]

regardless of the observer, experiments show that clock run slower in airplane than on the earth, for all observers...

For clocks flying in an aeroplane, there are two effects. One is due to the height that the plane flies above the ground, since clocks that are higher run faster. The other effect is due to the speed of the plane relative the ground. Moving clocks run slower than stationary ones. In the aeroplane case, the speeds are relatively low, so the height effect wins.

there is no “time shrinking” which causes that clocks run slower, time is not part of space, space is 4D,
X4 = ict where t is "tick" of clock in space only (not in time)

Time and space are both part of spacetime. Change reference frames, and some of your "time" becomes some of your "space", and vice-versa.

please explain how time as a 4-th dimension of space causes that mechanism of clock runs slower ?

If you're looking for a primer on relativity, there are plenty of sites on the web, and plenty of introductory textbooks you can refer to.

how is with photon ?
moves photon only in space or it moves also in time ?

Photons from the light next to my computer quite obviously move through space, or else I wouldn't be able to see the light. Showing that the movement takes a finite time is more difficult, but I've verified that fact experimentally myself, too.

 

[Zweistein]

there is no single experiment that time exists and no single experiment that time can be transformed in space and vice versa....this happens in mind only in imagination in mathematics

space is timeless, time is not part of the space, see book of Yourgrau: Forgotten Legacy of Einstein and Gödel

time is a mind frame through which we experience motion

 

[Smellsniffsniff]

How'bout the distance the photon moves divided with lightspeed?
Sure, photons don't have any rest mass so they don't have any rest time, but it can have movement time, that's why it oscillate.

 

[Zweistein]

Photon oscillates in space only as we are breathing in space only...............

frequency = 1/t, where t is "tick" of clock in space, clock runs in space only and not in time

 

[James R]

there is no single experiment that time exists...

If it didn't exist, everything would happen at once. So, in a sense, every experiment verifies that time exists.

and no single experiment that time can be transformed in space and vice versa....this happens in mind only in imagination in mathematics

So do you have an alternative explanation for relativistic effects (time dilation, length contraction), or do you not believe in them?

space is timeless, time is not part of the space

I agree. We wouldn't use two words for the same thing, would we?

time is a mind frame through which we experience motion

But my watch measures time, and it has no mind.

 

[Farsight]

James: Zweistein's English isn't always ideal, but I would urge you to pay close attention to the argument here. I don't agree with every last detail, but in broad terms, I'd say his argument is correct. Take a close look at your watch. It doesn't contain some little hour-glass full of time flowing from one chamber to another. It's a mechanism that counts regular spatial motions, typically oscillations of a spring or crystal, and it displays this count either digitally or via moving "hands". We call it "the time", but it's the result of motion through space. Yes, we derive the time dimension, and combine it usefully with the spatial dimensions as Minkowski spacetime, but it's a cumulative measure of motion through space. It isn't a dimension that offers any freedom of movement.

As regards whether time exists, I'd rephrase "there is no single experiment that time exists" to "there is no experimental evidence that time exists in a fundamental sense". I'd say it's something like heat. Heat exists, but temperature is a measure of the average motion of say the gas molecules in a container. You can't literally climb to a higher temperature, just as you can't literally travel through time. Or spacetime either. The motion is through space.

 

[Zweistein]

If it didn't exist, everything would happen at once. So, in a sense, every experiment verifies that time exists.



So do you have an alternative explanation for relativistic effects (time dilation, length contraction), or do you not believe in them?



I agree. We wouldn't use two words for the same thing, would we?



But my watch measures time, and it has no mind.

TIME PREVENTS THAT EVERYTHING HAPPENS AT ONCE .....is a joke.......

time does not exists, but stream of change run in a timeless space,
change exists in the universe, time not
time is a mind frame through which we experience change

this is my last message....I will be banned soon, good im tired of your hankering on time
ciao

 

[Zweistein]

The only time that exists in the physical universe is numerical order of material change that run in a timeless space.................ciao

 

[BertBonsai]

The only time that exists in the physical universe is numerical order of material change that run in a timeless space.................ciao

Unless we define time to be a numerical order of change. My dictionary says that time is "the continuum of experience in which events pass from the future through the present to the past". Sounds close enough to me.

 

[James R]

Farsight:

James: Zweistein's English isn't always ideal, but I would urge you to pay close attention to the argument here. I don't agree with every last detail, but in broad terms, I'd say his argument is correct. Take a close look at your watch. It doesn't contain some little hour-glass full of time flowing from one chamber to another. It's a mechanism that counts regular spatial motions, typically oscillations of a spring or crystal, and it displays this count either digitally or via moving "hands". We call it "the time", but it's the result of motion through space.

Motion of any kind requires time. As I said before, if something is here now and there later, then it must have moved both in time and space. The definition of velocity requires both time and space.

As regards whether time exists, I'd rephrase "there is no single experiment that time exists" to "there is no experimental evidence that time exists in a fundamental sense".

No more evidence than that space exists "in a fundamental sense" (whatever that means).

 

[Zweistein]

Farsight:



Motion of any kind requires time. As I said before, if something is here now and there later, then it must have moved both in time and space. The definition of velocity requires both time and space.



No more evidence than that space exists "in a fundamental sense" (whatever that means).

motion runs in space, motion does not require time
motion itself is timelless

v = d/t (t is tick of clock in space)

 

[BertBonsai]

my dictionary disagrees

 

[James R]

motion runs in space, motion does not require time
motion itself is timelless

v = d/t (t is tick of clock in space)

t is time, not space.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Motion of any kind requires time. As I said before, if something is here now and there later, then it must have moved both in time and space. The definition of velocity requires both time and space.

Not to distract from Zweistein's lunacy, but doesn't motion only require time if mass is involved? Ex. photons move through space but not time.

 

[James R]

Photons move through time.

I turn on the light now and a little later photons hit my desk.

They were over there a while ago; now they're here. So, they shifted in both time and space.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Photons move through time.

I turn on the light now and a little later photons hit my desk.

They were over there a while ago; now they're here. So, they shifted in both time and space.

If we put a tiny clock on a photon and let it ride from our galaxy to the next, would its time change?

 

[noodler]

"time existence at light speed" answers the question.

Because: "speed" is a constant velocity for light. Velocity is the physical time rate of change of position. The only real problem here is 'determining' a photon's position.
That's ok because it has constant momentum and momentum is always conserved.

So constant momentum at constant velocity => finite time of travel. But this is only logical if the location of the source and destination are determined by measurement (with rulers and clocks).