Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can change exist without time?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 2:32:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The question seems fairly simple. Do you think it is possible for change to exist without time, or does change imply some kind of time?
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 2:41:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Change implies an order of events, so I'd say yes, time has to be there so that these events can occur and change can eventually happen.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 3:54:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 2:32:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The question seems fairly simple. Do you think it is possible for change to exist without time, or does change imply some kind of time?

I think that change implies some kind of time.
That's why at the speed of light one doesn't age, and nothing can happen.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 3:59:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Change implies (perhaps is even synonymous with) time, so I'd say no.

Also, I'm fairly sure you would still age at the speed of light.
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 4:24:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 2:32:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The question seems fairly simple. Do you think it is possible for change to exist without time, or does change imply some kind of time?

Not really, in fact, I would say that time is just our way of defining change.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 4:46:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It seems simple, but it's not.

I'd say that change can exist without relative time, or time as we know it to be.

If you remove all the matter and energy from the universe Time and Space vanish according to Einstein Relativity. However, that just puts the universe back into a timeless, spaceless, Zero Dimensional singularity, which happens to be where relativity says things started. Clearly from there a change can happen that creates the universe with relative time. However, if time exists at that point it's clearly not time as we know time to be.

Clearly, if you accept Relativity, and you view change only possible with time existent then their must be more than one version of time functioning.

Note: This is why I don't subscribe to ether A time or B time, but flirt with AB time.

PS
I'm crazy
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 4:54:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 3:59:00 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Also, I'm fairly sure you would still age at the speed of light.

No you wouldn't age traveling at the speed of light. It's the primary reason why Matter with Mass isn't allowed to travel at the speed of light. No decay, no time, nothing.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 4:58:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 4:54:26 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 3:59:00 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Also, I'm fairly sure you would still age at the speed of light.

No you wouldn't age traveling at the speed of light. It's the primary reason why Matter with Mass isn't allowed to travel at the speed of light. No decay, no time, nothing.

Matter can travel at the speed of light. What it can't do is accelerate up to it. In principle it could start travelling at that speed, though. Also, relativity is just that; relative. You would only stop ageing from the perspective of an outside (i.e. subluminal velocity) observer. Within your own relative timeframe, you would age at the normal speed.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:34:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 2:32:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The question seems fairly simple. Do you think it is possible for change to exist without time, or does change imply some kind of time?
Change = Time and Time = Change.

At 5/23/2013 3:59:00 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Change implies (perhaps is even synonymous with) time, so I'd say no.
Precisely.

Also, I'm fairly sure you would still age at the speed of light.
Well, it depends on your frame of reference. From the point of view of an observer that is not traveling at c, the object traveling at c seems to not age at all. However, from the point of view of an object traveling at c, the entire Universe is flat in the direction of travel; it is flat in spacetime. This means that all of spacetime in the direction of c is flat.

Matter can travel at the speed of light. What it can't do is accelerate up to it.
That is incorrect. Although there is a matter/energy equivalence, they are not the same thing. One could say matter, in the form of energy, can travel at c; but then again, that's energy not matter. It's kind of like saying that "ice can flow" because when ice is in the form of liquid water it can flow. The problem is ice is not= to liquid water.

In principle it could start travelling at that speed, though.
No it cannot because matter has mass. A photon can travel at c because it has no mass. I hope I do not have to explain that we are talking about "rest mass" here...

Also, relativity is just that; relative. You would only stop ageing from the perspectiwve of an outside (i.e. subluminal velocity) observer. Within your own relative timeframe, you would age at the normal speed.
At c you would not, only below c. At c, there is no more time left; you have used it all up.

At 5/23/2013 4:46:56 PM, medv4380 wrote:
It seems simple, but it's not.

I'd say that change can exist without relative time, or time as we know it to be.
Nonsense. Time is change and change is time. If there is a system where there is change, then time is occurring; if there is a system where change has not occurred, then it CANNOT be shown that time has occurred. These 2 are undeniable.

If you remove all the matter and energy from the universe Time and Space vanish according to Einstein Relativity.
Not possible as this would violate the laws of thermodynamics. If however, the Universe reached the Omega state where all things in the Universe where one thing, then yes we would have a timeless singular state which has no future.

However, that just puts the universe back into a timeless, spaceless, Zero Dimensional singularity, which happens to be where relativity says things started.
Well...the Alpha State is more of a 2 dimensional state (like the initial state of a checker board.) The 0th Dimension is Time followed by the 1st Dimension...2nd...3rd Dimension to form spacetime.

Clearly from there a change can happen that creates the universe with relative time.
Well it can from the Alpha State that I explained but not from the Omega state that you explained. If there is only one thing, how can change occur? It cannot.

However, if time exists at that point it's clearly not time as we know time to be.
You're rambling. You need to define this "not time as we know it" so we can know what you are talking about. Otherwise it's just meaninglessness.

Clearly, if you accept Relativity, and you view change only possible with time existent then their must be more than one version of time functioning.
Non sequitur.

Note: This is why I don't subscribe to ether A time or B time, but flirt with AB time.
Nonsense.

PS
I'm crazy
And how!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:37:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 4:58:15 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/23/2013 4:54:26 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 3:59:00 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Also, I'm fairly sure you would still age at the speed of light.

No you wouldn't age traveling at the speed of light. It's the primary reason why Matter with Mass isn't allowed to travel at the speed of light. No decay, no time, nothing.

Matter can travel at the speed of light. What it can't do is accelerate up to it. In principle it could start travelling at that speed, though. Also, relativity is just that; relative. You would only stop ageing from the perspective of an outside (i.e. subluminal velocity) observer. Within your own relative timeframe, you would age at the normal speed.

I said Matter with Mass for a reason. The way the equations work the only particles that can travel at the speed of light are massless.

The problem with saying something has a relative frame and is traveling at the speed of light is that the distance between two points at the speed of light is Zero. This is why no time is experienced.

Light traveling from the Sun to the Earth have Zero distance traveled from their reference frame. The only time photons experience time is when they interact with matter that has mass which also happens to slow them down. This is also why it's impossible to have two photons collide without some other form of matter forcing both into existence, or exceeding the energy density permitted by space.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 5:41:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:34:23 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
However, if time exists at that point it's clearly not time as we know time to be.
You're rambling. You need to define this "not time as we know it" so we can know what you are talking about. Otherwise it's just meaninglessness.

Time as we know it is 4th dimensional space-time. If you're at Zero dimentions you do not have time as we experience it. It might be a form of time, but it's not our time.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 6:26:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 2:32:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
The question seems fairly simple. Do you think it is possible for change to exist without time, or does change imply some kind of time?

No, time is what our clocks measure, it is one of the four fundamental dimensions in which change occurs, it's a part of the framework from which we derive the concept of change. Time and space are fundamentally one thing, they cannot be separated, so time is an component aspect of change. It is meaningless to treat time as if it were a separate or independent entity.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 8:13:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't believe so. A change or cause has to come before an event, no time = no before. Of course you could have atemporal causality, however this isn't really a change in anything.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2013 10:07:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I say yes. There does not need to be time for change to occur.

Even in time, nothing potentially changes. You may be old now, but when you were young, it happened, and you will be old. It is not a change, young to old, if you think about it. It is simply a set sequence. Any dimensional object can be thought of as a set sequence. It simply cannot be observed as a whole.
0x5f3759df
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 4:11:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, it depends on your frame of reference. From the point of view of an observer that is not traveling at c, the object traveling at c seems to not age at all. However, from the point of view of an object traveling at c, the entire Universe is flat in the direction of travel; it is flat in spacetime. This means that all of spacetime in the direction of c is flat.

That is incorrect. Although there is a matter/energy equivalence, they are not the same thing. One could say matter, in the form of energy, can travel at c; but then again, that's energy not matter. It's kind of like saying that "ice can flow" because when ice is in the form of liquid water it can flow. The problem is ice is not= to liquid water.

My understanding of it was that the problem is with the acceleration to c, not actually being at c itself. Since the rest mass of the object would be the same in the object's own frame of reference and there"s no requirement for accelerative forces if the object's initial state was travelling at the speed of light, would there still be a problem?

Note that this is a thought experiment only; I realise that we've never seen evidence of massive objects travelling at c. I just thought that it wasn"t ruled out by the equations and was therefore a viable scenario. Or are you saying that the situation is impossible because of what would happen outside the relative frame of the object, so if we plugged the numbers into a Lorentz transformation we wouldn't have any intervals outside of the t' frame and therefore t frame observations would be impossible?

Apologies if that's a bit garbled, but it"s a very long time since I did any physics.

PS. Does anyone know how to stop the forum software from changing all my 's into "s? The editing window is so small that it's much easier to copy in from a word document, but when I do everything seems to take on a mind of its own.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 9:23:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 4:11:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Well, it depends on your frame of reference. From the point of view of an observer that is not traveling at c, the object traveling at c seems to not age at all. However, from the point of view of an object traveling at c, the entire Universe is flat in the direction of travel; it is flat in spacetime. This means that all of spacetime in the direction of c is flat.

That is incorrect. Although there is a matter/energy equivalence, they are not the same thing. One could say matter, in the form of energy, can travel at c; but then again, that's energy not matter. It's kind of like saying that "ice can flow" because when ice is in the form of liquid water it can flow. The problem is ice is not= to liquid water.

My understanding of it was that the problem is with the acceleration to c, not actually being at c itself. Since the rest mass of the object would be the same in the object's own frame of reference and there"s no requirement for accelerative forces if the object's initial state was travelling at the speed of light, would there still be a problem?

Note that this is a thought experiment only; I realise that we've never seen evidence of massive objects travelling at c. I just thought that it wasn"t ruled out by the equations and was therefore a viable scenario. Or are you saying that the situation is impossible because of what would happen outside the relative frame of the object, so if we plugged the numbers into a Lorentz transformation we wouldn't have any intervals outside of the t' frame and therefore t frame observations would be impossible?

Apologies if that's a bit garbled, but it"s a very long time since I did any physics.

PS. Does anyone know how to stop the forum software from changing all my 's into "s? The editing window is so small that it's much easier to copy in from a word document, but when I do everything seems to take on a mind of its own.

The problem is the concept of Relativistic Mass
Mass = (rest mass)/(1-(velocity^2/C^2))^1/2
As you can see if your velocity equals C then you would have Your rest mass divided by Zero which would mean you'd have Infinite Mass. The only way around this is to have no mass. Which is why photons get away with it.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 9:26:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I apologise for my profound stupidity, I really should have noticed the divide by zero in that.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 9:57:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/23/2013 5:41:51 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:34:23 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
However, if time exists at that point it's clearly not time as we know time to be.
You're rambling. You need to define this "not time as we know it" so we can know what you are talking about. Otherwise it's just meaninglessness.
Time as we know it is 4th dimensional space-time.
No, that's spacetime. Time is a dimension unto itself.

If you're at Zero dimentions you do not have time as we experience it. It might be a form of time, but it's not our time.
You either have time or you don't; you still didn't define this "mystical" time that you say might exist. Regardless, the question becomes: given the 0th dimension, can there exist change? I think not because a 0th dimension can only contain one thing: it is essentially "singularity itself." I think that it requires more than on 0th dimension for there to be time, and so time only comes about when there is more than one thing.

At 5/24/2013 4:11:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
My understanding of it was that the problem is with the acceleration to c, not actually being at c itself.
I do not know what "problem" you are referring to; regardless, things do not accelerate to c.

Since the rest mass of the object would be the same in the object's own frame of reference and there's no requirement for accelerative forces if the object's initial state was travelling at the speed of light, would there still be a problem?
No, but then again, things that travel at c do not have rest mass on the count that they're not at rest.

Note that this is a thought experiment only; I realise that we've never seen evidence of massive objects travelling at c. I just thought that it wasn't ruled out by the equations and was therefore a viable scenario.
On the contrary, it is explicitly ruled out by the equations. Any object with mass will need an infinite amount of energy to reach c. Again, rest mass.

PS. Does anyone know how to stop the forum software from changing all my 's into "s? The editing window is so small that it's much easier to copy in from a word document, but when I do everything seems to take on a mind of its own.
Noticed that too...perhaps it's a unicode vs ascii thing...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 10:51:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 9:57:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I do not know what "problem" you are referring to; regardless, things do not accelerate to c.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Hence saying that the problem (n. - a source of perplexity, distress, or vexation) is that things cannot be accelerated to c.

No, but then again, things that travel at c do not have rest mass on the count that they're not at rest.

Things travelling at any speed don't have a rest mass, by that reasoning. While obviously there are reasons that things with rest mass cannot be accelerated to (or decelerate from) c, it does not necessarily follow that things travelling at c cannot have rest mass. It just can't ever not be travelling at c to enjoy the luxury.

On the contrary, it is explicitly ruled out by the equations. Any object with mass will need an infinite amount of energy to reach c. Again, rest mass.

Why do you keep disputing the unposited idea that something with rest mass could be accelerated to c? Anyway, what I was asking about has been answered (with the usual answer of: pay more attention to the equations), so no matter.

Noticed that too...perhaps it's a unicode vs ascii thing...

It also seems to do it to semi-colons. I've tried copying from various sources and it always does the same. That said, I had assumed this was all standard HTML until I tried using italics and found the tags were odd.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 11:11:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 10:51:05 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/24/2013 9:57:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
No, but then again, things that travel at c do not have rest mass on the count that they're not at rest.
Things travelling at any speed don't have a rest mass, by that reasoning.
That would be incorrect reasoning on your part. I said things that travel at c have no rest mass I did not say that things that travel have no rest mass.

While obviously there are reasons that things with rest mass cannot be accelerated to c...
Correct...

(or decelerate from) c
Incorrect, because things with rest mass that travel at c do not exist...

it does not necessarily follow that things travelling at c cannot have rest mass.
It actually does necessarily follow.

It just can't ever not be travelling at c to enjoy the luxury.
"Square-circles can exist, it's just that they don't have the luxury of being circular when they're square." Brilliant!

On the contrary, it is explicitly ruled out by the equations. Any object with mass will need an infinite amount of energy to reach c. Again, rest mass.
Why do you keep disputing the unposited idea that something with rest mass could be accelerated to c?
That's probably because it is posited.

Anyway, what I was asking about has been answered (with the usual answer of: pay more attention to the equations), so no matter.
Indeed.

Noticed that too...perhaps it's a unicode vs ascii thing...
It also seems to do it to semi-colons. I've tried copying from various sources and it always does the same. That said, I had assumed this was all standard HTML until I tried using italics and found the tags were odd.
I see.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 11:18:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 11:11:58 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Incorrect, because things with rest mass that travel at c do not exist...

Oh yes, I should have thought of that before I asked a question to find out whether things with rest mass could ever travel at c! Stupid me for not knowing the answer to my own question prior to answering it, eh?

"Square-circles can exist, it's just that they don't have the luxury of being circular when they're square." Brilliant!

I don't think you understand the concept of someone asking a question for clarification because they don't know all of the relevant details at the time they ask the question. It's a fairly simple on though, so I'm not giving up hope yet.

That's probably because it is posited.

Should be easy to quote me positing that things with rest mass could be accelerated to c, then. Off you pop.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 11:34:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 11:18:23 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/24/2013 11:11:58 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Incorrect, because things with rest mass that travel at c do not exist...
Oh yes, I should have thought of that before I asked a question to find out whether things with rest mass could ever travel at c! Stupid me for not knowing the answer to my own question prior to answering it, eh?
That's funny because I did answer it and yet you continued to challenge me.

"Square-circles can exist, it's just that they don't have the luxury of being circular when they're square." Brilliant!
I don't think you understand the concept of someone asking a question for clarification because they don't know all of the relevant details at the time they ask the question. It's a fairly simple on though, so I'm not giving up hope yet.
Perhaps you understand the concept of someone answering a question. Keep hope alive!

That's probably because it is posited.
Should be easy to quote me positing that things with rest mass could be accelerated to c, then. Off you pop.
No need, because it was I that posited it. Notice how I said it was posited and NOT that it was posited by you. Details, details...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 12:28:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 11:34:43 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
That's funny because I did answer it and yet you continued to challenge me.

No, you babbled about things not being able to accelerate to c, which was something I had already stated I was well aware of. Then you said that because something is travelling it doesn't have a rest mass, which is the least useful or accurate bit of information you could have supplied whilst still staying vaguely on topic.

My initial question, since apparently it's very difficult to grasp, was not whether anything could be accelerated to c. It was whether - as a thought experiment - there was anything preventing a scenario where something with mass was already travelling at the speed of light could ever occur. The correct, intelligent and civil response to this was not "nothing can be accelerated to c" or "I'm going to be terribly boorish for no apparent reason". Since these were the only two areas you covered, you quite clearly didn't answer my initial question. You also seem to gripping to the idea that I've been talking about accelerating things with rest mass to c. I haven't. I've clearly stated (repeatedly, I think) that I know that isn't possible.

Perhaps you understand the concept of someone answering a question. Keep hope alive!

"I know that something with rest mass cannot be accelerated to c, but could something with rest mass theoretically travel at c so long as it always travelled at that speed?"

"No, nothing with a rest mass can be accelerated to c."

Or, if you'd like a direct quote:

"My understanding of it was that the problem is with the acceleration to c, not actually being at c itself."
"
I do not know what "problem" you are referring to; regardless, things do not accelerate to c."

Or another one:

"Note that this is a thought experiment only; I realise that we've never seen evidence of massive objects travelling at c. I just thought that it wasn't ruled out by the equations and was therefore a viable scenario."

"On the contrary, it is explicitly ruled out by the equations. Any object with mass will need an infinite amount of energy to reach c. Again, rest mass."

I see you've got a handle on it, thankfully.

No need, because it was I that posited it. Notice how I said it was posited and NOT that it was posited by you. Details, details...

Excuse me for not realising you were making a statement that I'd already repeatedly made and then pointing out to me what I'd just said. I assumed you meant something more useful. At all useful, in fact.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 1:11:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Allow me to interject, nothing with rest mass can ever be accelerated to c.

Just in case you guys were wondering.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 1:19:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 1:11:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Allow me to interject, nothing with rest mass can ever be accelerated to c.

Just in case you guys were wondering.

D

That got a proper belly laugh.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 1:44:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 9:57:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:41:51 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 5/23/2013 5:34:23 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
However, if time exists at that point it's clearly not time as we know time to be.
You're rambling. You need to define this "not time as we know it" so we can know what you are talking about. Otherwise it's just meaninglessness.
Time as we know it is 4th dimensional space-time.
No, that's spacetime. Time is a dimension unto itself.

Not if you understand relativity. Space-Time is that "Time" dimension. Unless you want to claim that my insanity is right and that there is two definitions of time.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 1:54:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 12:28:36 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 5/24/2013 11:34:43 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
That's funny because I did answer it and yet you continued to challenge me.
No, you babbled about things not being able to accelerate to c, which was something I had already stated I was well aware of. Then you said that because something is travelling it doesn't have a rest mass, which is the least useful or accurate bit of information you could have supplied whilst still staying vaguely on topic.
Actually, the only babbling is yourself.

(You) Matter can travel at the speed of light. What it can't do is accelerate up to it.
(Me) That is incorrect. Although there is a matter/energy equivalence, they are not the same thing. One could say matter, in the form of energy, can travel at c; but then again, that's energy not matter. It's kind of like saying that "ice can flow" because when ice is in the form of liquid water it can flow. The problem is ice is not= to liquid water.
This answered the question.

My initial question, since apparently it's very difficult to grasp, was not whether anything could be accelerated to c. It was whether - as a thought experiment - there was anything preventing a scenario where something with mass was already travelling at the speed of light could ever occur. The correct, intelligent and civil response to this was not "nothing can be accelerated to c" or "I'm going to be terribly boorish for no apparent reason". Since these were the only two areas you covered, you quite clearly didn't answer my initial question. You also seem to gripping to the idea that I've been talking about accelerating things with rest mass to c. I haven't. I've clearly stated (repeatedly, I think) that I know that isn't possible.
Again, more boorishness on your part:

(You) In principle it could start travelling at that speed, though.
(Me) No it cannot because matter has mass. A photon can travel at c because it has no mass. I hope I do not have to explain that we are talking about "rest mass" here...
This also answered the question, again.

Perhaps you understand the concept of someone answering a question. Keep hope alive!
"I know that something with rest mass cannot be accelerated to c, but could something with rest mass theoretically travel at c so long as it always travelled at that speed?"
"No, nothing with a rest mass can be accelerated to c."
This also answered the question, again, again.

Or, if you'd like a direct quote:
"My understanding of it was that the problem is with the acceleration to c, not actually being at c itself."
" I do not know what "problem" you are referring to; regardless, things do not accelerate to c."
This also answered the question, again, again, again.

Or another one:
"Note that this is a thought experiment only; I realise that we've never seen evidence of massive objects travelling at c. I just thought that it wasn't ruled out by the equations and was therefore a viable scenario."
"On the contrary, it is explicitly ruled out by the equations. Any object with mass will need an infinite amount of energy to reach c. Again, rest mass."
This also answered the question, again, again, again, again.

I see you've got a handle on it, thankfully.
Yet even after having answered your question 5 to 6 times (I lost count already) you're still babbling on.

No need, because it was I that posited it. Notice how I said it was posited and NOT that it was posited by you. Details, details...
Excuse me for not realising you were making a statement that I'd already repeatedly made and then pointing out to me what I'd just said. I assumed you meant something more useful. At all useful, in fact.
If you has already made it, then why did you claim no one posited it? You are quite confused.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 2:09:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 1:54:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Actually, the only babbling is yourself.

I asked my mum and she said that I should tell you this:

No, you are.

This answered the question.

Since the rest of your post was just saying "nuh-uh" over and over again, I'll not bother with a quote by quote breakdown. I'd advice you go back and read things again though, if you think:

"I know that something with rest mass cannot be accelerated to c, but could something with rest mass theoretically travel at c so long as it always travelled at that speed?"
"No, nothing with a rest mass can be accelerated to c."

Isn't a profoundly stupid example of you answering a question that the text you quoted is asking. Honestly. Point your eyes at it. "I know my car cannot go at 200mph unmodified, but are there modifications I could make so that it would?" being answered with "Your unmodified car cannot go at 200mph". Oh, alright then, thanks...

That you then repeated quoting examples that are in complete contradiction with your claims is just the moronic icing on the stupidity cake.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 2:12:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And, indeed "then I don't know what is.". Why is there no edit function here? I'm far too lazy a typist to be trusted without one.