# Thread: Space-Time for dummies. (It works for me?)

1. How much distance in space is one second in time?

Answer: eighteen and one half miles;

derived from the time and distance of sixty seconds,
derived from the time and distance of sixty minutes,
derived from the space-time of 24 hours,
from that of one week,
from that of one month,
from that of twelve months of the 365 days of spacetime interval of one year (three hundred sixty five milllion miles).
Proving among other things, that time and space - space-time - values are not arbitrary as they are so often mistakenly thought and said to be.

There are those who say that it's difficult to get a firm, comprehensive grip on the 'mystery' of Einstein''s (Minkowsky) space-time.

(How difficult and mysterious is it?)

Question of the relatively spatial moment: how far is a parsec? Why does time and speed vary from coordinate system to coordinate system?

(Hint: it has to do with the 4-D space-time continuum, and, the coordinate system from which the observations and measurements are made.)

Everything is far out. Some things are further out than others.

2.

3. BULLSHIT
one second equals to C times one second wich is 299,792,458 meters.
dont say things like that when its obviusly lies and bullshit.
when ure dealing with time and distance in it u must use C

4. Originally Posted by Zelos
BULLSHIT
one second equals to C times one second wich is 299,792,458 meters.
dont say things like that when its obviusly lies and bullshit.
when ure dealing with time and distance in it u must use C
I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me.
____________________________

Dear Zelos:
There is no need to stop anything or person who isn't going anywhere. Not to be diverted too far off topic here, but be advised that a mouthwash of 20 MuleTeam Borax for now, and calling yourself a doctor in the morning might help jumpstart you.

C as you may or not know, is shorthand for Celeritas Constant - the speed of light, which is 186,282 miles per second. C in this context, has little to do with the distance traveled by the earth in one second, in its annual orbit around the sun. That distance is 18 1/2 miles.

A word of advise for you, boy: slow down and think more about what you're doing and saying before you say or do it. Take control of your life. Because, if you don't, sure as hell, somebody else will.
Sincere regards,
- Zeus

5. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
How much distance in space is one second in time?
all uses of measurement are arbitrary, you have not proven this to be wrong, so it could be 18 and a half miles it could me 299,792,458 m or any other distance that can be traversed in a second, ie every distance.

it is however customary to use measurement that will never change.
because while aliens may blast away at the earth and knock it into a different orbit, a car may roll to a stop or some mischevious devil may add more sand to your hour glass, C will always remain fixed.

hence in terms of C the second will always be the time taken for light to travel 299,792,458 m of space. this makes it a convenient measure.

6. i dont have to think, because saying its that far in meters isnt true, all distance in meters in the time dimension must be related to C
wich is 299,792,458 METERS. use meters or kilometers. SI units with SI prefixes

7. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
How much distance in space is one second in time?
all uses of measurement are arbitrary, you have not proven this to be wrong, so it could be 18 and a half miles it could me 299,792,458 m or any other distance that can be traversed in a second, ie every distance.
I agree. In my case of jogging, for instance, I typically max out at only a few meters in space per second of time.

8. Dear All:

Hey. You've made your points about C. (As you can see, I saw that checking in) On the other hand the point being made here was about the synomymity - inseperabiity - of space and time into space-time, and how time = distance. So C is the preferred standard. Okay. You got me on that. Whereas, that certainly don't make me a liar. That's a harsh way to point a technicality. The information I provided is correct. It's clarified that Zelos prefers his gravey under his potatos rather than his potatos under his gravey. A thousand pardons to all metric potato mashers and gravey splashers. (Refer, The Art of Missing The Point: when you don't feel like catching on.) How far is a parsec? You don't even have to provide a number or C to answer this question correctly.
- Suez

9. 1 parsec = AU (astronomical UNit, earth to sun distance) / sin(1/3600 Â°)= 3,08567758132*10^16 m = 3,26163344082 LY (lightyear, C * 60Â²*24*365,2425)

10. Zelos:
By Gosh'n golly yer probly right again. Whereas, you seem to be disregarding that I said this stuff was for dummies. That includes me in this context and I can't understand the math yer doing. It ain't zackley what most dummies would call simple. Sir. We're speaking two different languages that mean the same thing (Correct me (w'out math, please> if I'm wrong?) My understanding of a parsec is, as the distance traveled by light in one year. You see the difference between how you and I say it? Your way isn't for dummies.

11. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
On the other hand the point being made here was about the synomymity - inseperabiity - of space and time into space-time, and how time = distance.
I do not agree that time = distance is correct. I do agree that when time is used for measurement, then all measurement of time can be done only by measuring the motion of something through space (what you call distance).

12. I am aware that space and distance are not synonymous. Again, this is space-time for dummies. And space-time really isn't as difficult to understand as a lot of people seem to think. You contributors are doing 102,3 & 104 classes in a 101 session. Although the ongoing dialogue, I think, is making up for that and balancing itself out for the full comprehension of the dummies - that includes me when you go to math and the metric system.
Hey, every second of time is 18 1/2 miles of space moved through by the earth in its orbit around the sun. That's my story - not a lie - and I'm sticking with it. Nevertheless, thank you. Please feel free to add any further advancements and reminders if they're called for and you feel like it. On the other hand, I don't do anything but basic math and I use very little of the metric system. Ciao.

13. Originally Posted by Zelos
i dont have to think, because saying its that far in meters isnt true, all distance in meters in the time dimension must be related to C

14. Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
Again, this is space-time for dummies.
how do dummies become qualified physists if they are tought as dummies.

15. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Originally Posted by Zelos
i dont have to think, because saying its that far in meters isnt true, all distance in meters in the time dimension must be related to C
??

you cant use missleadingf information or uÂ´ll keep them at dummies level

16. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by That Rascal Puff
On the other hand the point being made here was about the synomymity - inseperabiity - of space and time into space-time, and how time = distance.
I do not agree that time = distance is correct. I do agree that when time is used for measurement, then all measurement of time can be done only by measuring the motion of something through space (what you call distance).
Well, Hermes it is a matter of increasing degrees of precision about the truth, and on the level of space-time for dummies, time = distance may be as good as you can get. But you may prefer a more accurate explanation such as:

The equation "time = distance" is the condition for the Killing vector in the Minkowsky geometry of the space-time continuum. A Killing vector is a vector in space-time along which the space-time metric is zero. The metric is given by,

space-time distance = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2).

All the difference between the space coordinates x, y, z and the time coordinate t, lies in that negative sign in front of the t^2.
But since spacial distiance is calculated by sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2), then you see if t = sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2) then the space time distance is zero. It is even more important to notice that if t > sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2) then the space-time distance is the square root of a negative number or what we call an imaginary number. The result is that we can define space-like distances (or intervals as we like to call them) in space-time given by sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2) and we can define time-like intervals in space-time given by sqrt(t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2), but these are forever separate and different.

Herein lies the real difference between space and time as we perceive it. Space-like intervals will always be a matter of spacial extention and never one of causal connection, whereas time-like intervals will always be a matter of causal connection and never spacial extention. This is identical to the limitation of all velocities to less than the speed of light. If space-time were Euclidean rather than Minkowsky with a space-time metric of sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + t^2) then there would be no limitation to the speed of light and no real difference between space and time. Time could be rotated into space and visa versa. The universe would simply be a static spatially extended object in four dimentions.

This is why ftl travel is nonsensical. It would annihilate the seperation between space and time and violate causality. ftl travel would enable one to travel into the past and create time-paradoxes, like killing ones own mother before you were born. Great science fiction!

17. good explination. just a few things
space-time distance = sqrt(x<sup>2</sup> + y<sup>2</sup> + z<sup>2</sup> - t<sup>2</sup>). is only valid if u count time in METERS
if u want to use seconds u gotta use
space-time distance = sqrt(x<sup>2</sup> + y<sup>2</sup> + z<sup>2</sup> - (ct)<sup>2</sup>).

but scientists tend to revers the sign because for normal objects v<c.
space-time distance = sqrt((ct)<sup>2</sup> - x<sup>2</sup> - y<sup>2</sup> - z<sup>2</sup>).
then u get a posetive value for normal objects. light = 0 and FTL=negative

when it comes to those paradoxes a mathematical proffesor made calulation on the probebility for a paradox to happen. It allways equal to 0 when a paradox rise. aslongest it wasent paradoxal it were > 0
so paradoxes can be solved by that ther is no chance that they happen, logical

18. How much distance in space is one-second in time?

Hmmmm' let me think about this...of course we will consider that you are talking about time as you perceive it? Or time as the universe perceives it, or time as an observer(s) perceives it? Or is it time as all three would see it with an observer outside the temporal universe sees it? heh serious questions beget a serious answer.....

If you would care to answer the above questions I may be able to expound on the thread.

[/color][/b]

19. thats easy, take C times the amount of time u want to convert to meters of space
its c*1Sec meters

20. thats easy, take C times the amount of time u want to convert to meters of space
its c*1Sec meters
Nevertheless, zelos, your answer, if correct, can only be correct for the observer. If I were observing a subject on earth while I was approaching the singularity of a black hole, (depending on my velocity, orbital speed etc... if any) I might say that the subjects time is increasing > million years = a second ...(by my watch)...yeah... I see, In my spacetime veiwer enabled IPOD telescope sixty million years pass in a min. of my time. Very cool except that at rate the sun would expire in a few days....

no, I havent done the math its just a guess....lets see a thousand million years...x 24 x 60 x 3...hmmm make that a couple of years...heh noooo I dont want to think this morning!!!!

While the speed c can be considered constant for our needs (see note one), time appears to stretch, slow down, speed up, or stop according to where you might be in our universe ....I would think that everything in our universe is in motion of some sort, even if not of the velocity where relativistic effects are apparent. They still exist. And this like some aspects of quantum theory have strange consequences on time mass and well life (read reality) as we think we know it.

: } >[/b]

Note one.......The speed of c can be made to slow down, or be manipulated in various ways, by massive objects and the medium that it; passes through. But for our purposes we will consider c to be around 186,000 mps.

21. its relative distance we are talking about. so of course it depends on the observer. But we are talking relative to your OWN reference frame. in it one second of time equals to C meters in spatial.
to a moving observer u simply takes C times y
y=1/sqt(1-(v/c)<sup>2</sup>)
to a obsserver moving relative to you he will experience ur LS bieng Cy if his, instant of C. but relative to you his light second is Cy.
its all relative. but does anyone notive something "odd"?

22. Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
The equation "time = distance" is the condition for the Killing vector in the Minkowsky geometry of the space-time continuum. A Killing vector is a vector in space-time along which the space-time metric is zero.
This sounds like a simple enough explanation.

23. Thats pretty much saying everything i am thinking with better grammer.

24. Originally Posted by Zelos
good explination. just a few things
space-time distance = sqrt(x<sup>2</sup> + y<sup>2</sup> + z<sup>2</sup> - t<sup>2</sup>). is only valid if u count time in METERS
if u want to use seconds u gotta use
space-time distance = sqrt(x<sup>2</sup> + y<sup>2</sup> + z<sup>2</sup> - (ct)<sup>2</sup>).

but scientists tend to revers the sign because for normal objects v<c.
space-time distance = sqrt((ct)<sup>2</sup> - x<sup>2</sup> - y<sup>2</sup> - z<sup>2</sup>).
then u get a posetive value for normal objects. light = 0 and FTL=negative

when it comes to those paradoxes a mathematical proffesor made calulation on the probebility for a paradox to happen. It allways equal to 0 when a paradox rise. aslongest it wasent paradoxal it were > 0
so paradoxes can be solved by that ther is no chance that they happen, logical
Zelos is of course correct, except there is no need to reference meters in what he is saying. If time is in seconds and distance is in miles then you just use c = 186,000 mi/sec and you are fine.

You can also measure the spatial coordinates in seconds represented by the following modification of the metric.

space-time distance = sqrt((x/c)<sup>2</sup> + (y/c)<sup>2</sup> + (z/c)<sup>2</sup> - t<sup>2</sup>).

thus if t is in seconds and x in meters then x/c = x/(3x10^8m/s) would be in light seconds. To give you an idea how far that is, the distance to the sun is about 500 light seconds.

25. or 8 light minutes about

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement