-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|399|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- Socoder -> Off Topic -> Time And Relative Dimensions In Space Posted : Friday, 11 January 2019, 14:12 spinal If everything travels through space-time at exactly the same speed, with the amount of space you travel directly effected by the amount of time you travel, the fact that light has an observable speed would suggest that light might not be the fastest thing in the universe. Because it is not able to travel 100 % in space and 0 % in time... Does that sound right to anyone else? -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage! Posted : Friday, 11 January 2019, 14:12 Jayenkai Nah.. That's what Relativity is about.. The faster something moves through space, the slower they perceive to be moving through time.. (I think that's the right way around!?) -=-=- ''Load, Next List!'' Posted : Friday, 11 January 2019, 18:08 steve_ancell I've had too much drink to decipher it, good luck! Posted : Saturday, 12 January 2019, 03:08 spinal Yes, but I'm suggesting that simply because we can see light move, that it isn't moving completely horizontal across the following graph... Apparently everything travelling though spacetime does so at exactly the same speed, so imagining time as one physical direction and the three spacial dimensions as just one other, we can show movement through spacetime in a 2d graph. A TV Stand for example travels mostly through the 'time direction' and hardly through space, whereas light travels mostly through the 'space' direction and hardly through any time. The fact that we can see light, means that it can not be travelling at the fastest possible speed through space, as that would result in it NOT travelling through time at all, we wouldn't see it. That make sense? -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage! Posted : Saturday, 12 January 2019, 04:04 Jayenkai If we could "catch" light... slow it down, and hold it. That would help us understand more. Does trapped light still "age", or is light beyond time..!??! -=-=- ''Load, Next List!'' Posted : Sunday, 13 January 2019, 01:23 rockford We need Kylo Ren to answer that question (Star Wars - Episode VII)... Posted : Monday, 28 January 2019, 02:56 spinal Hang, on, quantum entanglement shows information travelling faster than light. So fast that we can't measure it, perhaps whatever is conveying the information between entangled particles is travelling 100% in space and 0% in time, suggesting that this information is actually everywhere it needs to be at the same time, simply because time isn't even in the equation... |edit| ...wait, nope. It's not about changing and influencing, only knowing. As the particles are entangled, you deduce the state of one, you don't actually change it. Like opening a book at page 75 and reading line 23, word 6. You know instantly, faster than light speed that when you have a look and a copy of the same book, page 75, line 23 word 6 will be exactly what you expect it to be. -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage! Posted : Friday, 08 March 2019, 09:31 spinal Thinking about it, if something does move at 100% space and 0% time, we might never encounter it in the whole life of the universe. Whatever the smallest measurement of time could be,perhaps many billions of decimal places of a second, if we ever discover that there IS a smallest amount of time (which there might not be), then, something travelling 0 amount of time would be at every point in it's journey from start to finish within that unit of time, it would be EVERYWHERE it intends to go within one 'unit of time'. Problem is, all of our methods of time measurement rely on the movement of light, so we might never be able to measure faster than it. -=-=- Check out my excellent homepage! 