/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12465041]

"You are always going the speed of light through time, If you move in any direction you exchange that speed for going through space"

what does that mean?

[Anonymous No.12465045]

>>12465041
would have been a God awful mother

[Anonymous No.12465071]

>>12465041
RIP coffee

[Anonymous No.12465097]

>tfw i will never squeeze those perfect melons

[Anonymous No.12465109]

>>12465041
You should probably understand speed and velocities before worrying about this stuff.

[Anonymous No.12465150]

>>12465041
Think of space time as a plane.
It means that what you think is speed is really like a rotation in the space time plane. The caveat is that you can't rotate (or "boost") yourself to the speed of light in the space like axis, so it's not exactly the same.
In mathematical language this is just that a Lorentz transformation is a rotation in the (non compact) group SO(3,1).
But this description is really a way of cutting through the bullshit of time dilation and length contraction which are stupid, superfluous concepts. When you're a photon, travelling at speed c, you don't experience time at all. You're going purely along the space axis. But if you were stationary, in your perspective, you'd be purely along the time axis. Now normally you're not stationary, but you're not travelling at the speed of light either, and as you move a bit faster, you can think of yourself as rotating off the timelike axis (only travelling forward in time), because now you're also moving through space. So increasing your speed is really like rotating yourself in the space time plane. The projection on the timelike axis represents what you think seems like "time dilation" (but there's no such thing, really) and the projection on the space like axis is how quickly you think you're going from your point of view.

[Anonymous No.12465155]

>>12465150
So, strictly speaking, that phrase should really be that you're always travelling through space time at the speed of light, not time. And the speed of light should really just be referred to as the universal speed.

[Anonymous No.12465241]

>>12465045
*father

[Anonymous No.12465890]

>>12465155
>space time

[Anonymous No.12466388]

>>12465150
>axis

[Anonymous No.12467887]

>>12465041
>time

[Anonymous No.12467921]

Can we measure the absolute speed of something?

[Anonymous No.12467948]

>>12465041
> You are always going the speed of light through time
pop-sci description of moving in our 4D spacetime.

> If you move in any direction you exchange that speed for going through space
complete bullshit and simply wrong.

[Anonymous No.12467956]

>>12467948
that's mathematically legitimate tho (except they probably mean spacetime not space)

[Anonymous No.12468659]

is this the time travel thread

[Anonymous No.12468740]

>>12465041

[Anonymous No.12469184]

>>12468740

[Anonymous No.12469219]

>>12466388
Based fridge

[Anonymous No.12470658]

>>12465041
From a fifth perspective, or maybe fourth, I'm not sure, we are in a string of spaces, and you are in each space, but in some of them you are in different spaces within the space. The difference between each space is one light distance/time unit, and to get from one point in one space to one point in a later space, you move the speed of light times n number of spaces moved, but you have to factor that the movement within the space is a part of that time, so you have to remove a bit, but not enough to matter unless you are moving between far away points in their relative spaces in a short amount of spaces. And there are a lot of other things to consider as well. I think. I am pretty retarded.

[Anonymous No.12470752]

>>12469184
luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul

[Anonymous No.12471583]

>>12469184
kek

[Anonymous No.12471587]

>>12465097
But you CAN, anon. There is no law of physics saying it’s impossible, just a predatory web of a mental inhibitions and a society whose rules have grown too mutated, jumbled, and outdated to be considered rational methods of operating in the world for the good of the group and yourself. BELIEVE anon. BELIEVE

[Anonymous No.12471590]

>>12465041
Who's she? Looks familiar
I think it's like the conservation of momentum but in relation to space time

[Anonymous No.12471666]

>>12465041
It means that your movement through spacetime is a curve whose tangent vector has constant magnitude. What you experience separately as passing of time and movement in space is an orthogonal decomposition of this vector into a timelike a spacelike directon.

[Anonymous No.12471811]

>>12469184
Based

[Anonymous No.12472615]

>>12469184
based

[Anonymous No.12473921]

>>12465041
Just what is says. Time slows down when you move. It is a garbage theory and not to be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.12474134]

>>12473921
no

[Anonymous No.12474323]

>>12465041
The speed of light is far too slow. The time between two instances is absolutely instant. From our perspective, it can only be described as 0. There is an actual quantifiable value that could be assigned to the tick speed of the universe, but because we have no perspective, and no given values from an external variable to compare it to. Not to mention, finding such a number would require us to redefine every metric of time that we currently use. For all intents and purposes we look at it as zero. for the formula of determining movement, lim_t->oo =0 because everything is divided by time.
The way we look at it now, you would be detracting a portion of your speed through time with any movement you make, but only a very small portion, and any portion of zero is still zero.

[Anonymous No.12475141]

Love you Ciara, Merry Christmas

[Anonymous No.12475546]

>>12475141
where is she

[Anonymous No.12475610]

>>12475546
Worm food

Also
>she

[Anonymous No.12476030]

>>12475610
rude

[Anonymous No.12476925]

>>12475546

in heaven with the other Angels

[Anonymous No.12477774]

>>12476925
>Angles

[Anonymous No.12477779]

>>12465041
Nothing, just some facebook nunsense

[Anonymous No.12478253]

>>12476925
>>12477774

Goddess

[Anonymous No.12478836]

>>12478253
male

[Anonymous No.12478971]

>>12478836

like Aphrodite

a Goddess in the heavens,

[Anonymous No.12479018]

>>12471587
Damn, well put.

[Anonymous No.12480129]

>>12477779
>facebook

[Anonymous No.12480596]

>>12467921
If you have a big enough ego Yes

[Anonymous No.12480776]

>>12465041
It means relativity is stupid.

[Anonymous No.12480812]

Interesting idea.

[Anonymous No.12480975]

>>12465041
This comes from the "invariant interval" also known as the "spacetime interval". It is important because its the same when measured from any inertial reference frame, if you calculate it for any 2 events from any inertial frame you get the same value, although the individual times and distances may be different. You can see it treats time like a distance by using the speed of light as a conversion factor. So it looks like time behaves similarly, though not exactly the same as a physical dimension and you can see there is a direct relationship between space and time, one observer may see a larger "space part" or the interval and another may see a larger "time part" of the interval, but the both agree that the interval itself is the same.

[Anonymous No.12481458]

>>12480975
>invariant

[Anonymous No.12481672]

>>12471590
>Who's she? Looks familiar
/r9k/ tripfag who died of an opiate overdose like a year ago and who 4chan schizos refuse to believe actually died

[Anonymous No.12482307]

>>12469184
Lol

[Anonymous No.12483931]

science

[Anonymous No.12484286]

>>12481672
Where's the evidence?

[Anonymous No.12484359]

>>12465041
you have it wrong. you are always going at the speed of light RELATIVE to something else. when you move through space, you are just changing your RELATIVE speed, but you are still going through space at the speed of light RELATIVE to something. very much emphasis on relative, since all information, and all particle interactions, are relative, and based on the relationship between the two particles. two observes can see a different spin from a particle, one observer can see a "collapsed" particle with the other seeing a "superpositioned" particle, and all those observations are correct. this is because a particles understanding and interpretation of another particle is based on the information it receives from the particle, and not the actual, factual state of the particles themselves. particle A is farther away from particle B than particle C, so particle A and particle C view particle B differently, because their relation ship with particle B is different.

for a layman's interpretation: a human and a bird of paradise both see, hear, experience, and comprehend the same object differently due to receiving different information, but both interpretations are functionally correct relative to the observer. neither the human or the bird of paradise are seeing the world "wrong", they are simply getting different information, because their relationship with the object is different, and the resulting interpretation is relative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics

[Anonymous No.12484468]

>>12469184
lol

[Anonymous No.12484896]

>>12483931

i wish i was that cup

[Anonymous No.12485405]

>>12484896
>wish

[Anonymous No.12486021]

>>12485405

>cup

[Anonymous No.12486677]

>>12465041
>perceives light
>everything you see is inside of light
>you are moving at the speed of light

[Anonymous No.12487209]

>>12465041
Look at Mikowski spacetime metric and it should obvious.