# Thread: How does space time work?

1. What i want is how does it work for people like us sitting in the chair or walking down the street?

2.

3. explain your question further plz

4. Originally Posted by thevignesh
What i want is how does it work for people like us sitting in the chair or walking down the street?
To put it simply, you dont. Relativity, which is part of modern physics, which means it deals with the extremes. Relativity deals with near light velocities. Thus, Space-time, which is a concept of relativity, isnt really used in everyday life.

5. What i want to know is to know is that when we move in this earth how does space time affect us?

6. Originally Posted by thevignesh
What i want to know is to know is that when we move in this earth how does space time affect us?
Space-time always affects us, even walking down the street you are travelling through space-time. The inseperability is what the unification of space and time 'space-time' is primarily about.

So the answer is - when you move any distance in the spatial dimentions you also move in the temporal dimension.

Was you expecting some awe inspiring answer akin to the movies?

7. Originally Posted by thevignesh
What i want to know is to know is that when we move in this earth how does space time affect us?
When you move your body, have you moved through space? Does this act take time? The space in your body only has so much time, and then you will die. Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.

8. Originally Posted by Imaplank
when you move any distance in the spatial dimentions you also move in the temporal dimension.
Originally Posted by Hermes
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
It seems like you guys have it backwards to me. I'm assuming by more "movement" you mean faster velocities, which actually slows down time for you, from the point of view of an observer. The more you move spatially, the less you move temporally (kind of like the more you are moving north, the less you are moving west). But from YOUR reference frame time ticks along the same as always.

9. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Originally Posted by Hermes
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
It seems like you guys have it backwards to me. I'm assuming by more "movement" you mean faster velocities,
Wrong asumption. I did not use the word "more". Reread the words that you cited, and try again.

which actually slows down time for you, from the point of view of an observer.
An observer is irrelevant. In all frames of reference, including your own, you will eventually die.

The more you move spatially, the less you move temporally (kind of like the more you are moving north, the less you are moving west).
No matter how much one moves north, it is not possible to move any less west because of it.

But from YOUR reference frame time ticks along the same as always.
And yet, as you move through space, you must necessarily move through time, and your space only has so much time. Do you deny this?

10. Do you argue just to argue or something?
Here's what you said:
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
You specifically said that every movement CAUSES your end to come sooner. There's no other way to interpret that, and you're incorrect int he context of this conversation. If you want to make up some bologna about using up energy and aging your body faster by strenuous activity or some other such nonsense that has nothing to do with this topic, go right ahead.

An observer is irrelevant. In all frames of reference, including your own, you will eventually die.
The particular observer may not matter, but when you're talking about relativity the frame of reference is not only relevant, it's crucial. I'm no expert but that's Relativity 101.

No matter how much one moves north, it is not possible to move any less west because of it.
This is absurd - I think you are just taking what I say and then disagreeing with it no matter how little sense it makes.
Take a 2 dimensional surface. Move west. As you turn more to the right, your velocity in the westward direction decreases because you are now moving more north. This is what I was saying, and it's obvious.

And yet, as you move through space, you must necessarily move through time, and your space only has so much time. Do you deny this?
You need to make more sense before I answer this one. I'm not sure what point you are making here. You implied causality, which is stronger than that statement. Let's not backtrack now Hermes.

11. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
You specifically said that every movement CAUSES your end to come sooner.
Can you please be kind enough to cite the location where I used the word "sooner"? While at it, can you cite the location where I talk about cause? It is co-incidence as much as cause-effect.

There's no other way to interpret that,
Speak for yourself.

and you're incorrect int he context of this conversation.
I did not realize that you had taken over this conversation and that you therefore have a monopoly on what it is now about.

If you want to make up some bologna about using up energy and aging your body faster by strenuous activity or some other such nonsense that has nothing to do with this topic, go right ahead.
Talk about nonsense, you seem to have no idea what I am talking about. You certainly do know how to complain, however. I will give you that much.

An observer is irrelevant. In all frames of reference, including your own, you will eventually die.
The particular observer may not matter, but when you're talking about relativity the frame of reference is not only relevant, it's crucial. I'm no expert
You said it right here. You are no expert. And yet you pretend to know what you are talking about, no matter how much evidence you offer to the contrary. Re-read the first posting to this thread. Where does it mention relativity?

No matter how much one moves north, it is not possible to move any less west because of it.
This is absurd - I think you are just taking what I say and then disagreeing with it no matter how little sense it makes.
Take a 2 dimensional surface. Move west. As you turn more to the right, your velocity in the westward direction decreases because you are now moving more north. This is what I was saying, and it's obvious.
Not only is it not obvious, but it is not meaningful. You don't even know what you are talking about, and yet you complain that what you are saying is obvious. The more one moves north, the more one moves north. If you wanted to make the claim that I cited here, then you should have made it, rather than making the meaningless claim that you did make.

12. Originally Posted by Hermes
Can you please be kind enough to cite the location where I used the word "sooner"? While at it, can you cite the location where I talk about cause? It is co-incidence as much as cause-effect.
Did you forget what you posted or something?

Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
If "causes" isn't talking about "cause" then I'd invite you to share with us what language you are speaking. If "nearer" means something vastly different than "sooner" when talking about an event (your end), please share with us this difference. If you actually mean something completely different than you say, maybe you could share with us why you do that.

Talk about nonsense, you seem to have no idea what I am talking about. You certainly do know how to complain, however. I will give you that much.
I was responding to what you said. If you mean something else, maybe you should have said it in the first place.

Re-read the first posting to this thread. Where does it mention relativity?
hermes - stop being so dense. The thread is called "How does SPACETIME work"
This is from the intro on the spacetime entry on wiki:
Originally Posted by wiki
In classical mechanics, spacetime is a mere formal option, but in special relativity, space and time are inseparable. The notion of space depends on the observer, as instantaneous events depend on a reference frame. Spacetime is also vital to general relativity, an extension of special relativity that takes gravitation into account.
So what spacetime are you talking about then, if not that one? That's like talking about mutation but then coming back with "who said anything about evolution?" Well I'd think you might want to mention what framework you are posing your answer if not the one that everyone would expect.

No matter how much one moves north, it is not possible to move any less west because of it.
Do you have trouble visualizing? If you are going 100 mph west, then you turn 45 degrees to the north, you are now going about 71 MPH in the west direction, and 71 mph in the north direction. 71 < 100, right? That's less west, right?

Not only is it not obvious
Yeah, it's obvious. I'm sorry you don't get it.

13. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Did you forget what you posted or something?
I see. You cannot supply a citation, so you post drivel instead. Nothing new here.

Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
If "causes" isn't talking about "cause" then I'd invite you to share with us what language you are speaking. If "nearer" means something vastly different than "sooner" when talking about an event (your end), please share with us this difference.
I see. You have decided what this conversation is about, and no one can change your mind. This cause is co-incidence. Motion through space causes, and therefore is co-incident to, motion through time. If there were no motion through space, could there be motion through time? Would this even be meaningful?

I was responding to what you said.
That would be a first. You are responding to your ijnterpretation of what I said, which is in the context of your own mind that you view as the only topic that is allowed here.

If you mean something else, maybe you should have said it in the first place.
It seems that the best you can do is the try to make the same claim about me that I just said about you. Far be it from you to apply your own logic on yourself.

hermes - stop being so dense. The thread is called "How does SPACETIME work"
What a joke you are. You think that space-time has no meaning or relevance outside of what relativity gives it. Listen to yourself!!!!!!

So what spacetime are you talking about then, if not that one?
The original question did not mention relativity. You inserted that. I don't care, but now you whine that I must also. He asked a question, and I responded. You, however, have to whine.

No matter how much one moves north, it is not possible to move any less west because of it.
Do you have trouble visualizing? If you are going 100 mph west, then you turn 45 degrees to the north, you are now going about 71 MPH in the west direction, and 71 mph in the north direction. 71 < 100, right? That's less west, right?
Look at you. You now present more detail to your otherwise meaningless point, and you claim that it was the only possible interpretation all along. Cute.

Not only is it not obvious
Yeah, it's obvious. I'm sorry you don't get it.
I am sorry that you whine so much. You think that your own bullshit is obvious, and to anyone else you blame them and not yourself. You say that I like to argue, yet you like to whine. Don't you?

14. Sure Hermes - I get it now!
Instead of interpreting "causes" as "causes" I should have KNOWN that you meant "co-incident to". Which as far as I can tell means absolutely nothing, and certainly doesn't mean anything similiar to "causes". Keep dancing, Hermes!
I'll provide you more opportunities to pretend you didn't say stuff later, I've got some work to do now though.

15. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Sure Hermes - I get it now!
Is that the best that you can do? Repeat back to me the very things that I blame you for? I guess that I should be thrilled to be your teacher. You are welcome.

16. I must say though real quick - I find it hilarious that the guy who wouldn't shut up about me "improperly" using the term animals is now backtracking so badly about the words he used. Hypocrisy at its finest. At any rate back to work now

17. Originally Posted by Neutrino
I must say though real quick - I find it hilarious that the guy who wouldn't shut up about me "improperly" using the term animals is now backtracking so badly about the words he used.
I see. You are a hypocrit. OK.

Hypocrisy at its finest.
You sure are, and a whiner as well.

At any rate back to work now
And a liar as well. You are on a roll.

18. Wow Hermes you're lucky the mods here don't seem to mind insults and namecalling or you'd definitely have a timeout to serve. Why are you at a message board anyway if you can't STAND when someone disagrees with you, or calls you out on something you're wrong about?
Did you plan on answering my post or were you just going to quote each part, and then call me a whiner for daring to disagree with you?

19. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Wow Hermes you're lucky the mods here don't seem to mind insults and namecalling or you'd definitely have a timeout to serve.
And yet, I see that you are quite willing to prove my contention that you are a liar, and quickly too.

Why are you at a message board anyway if you can't STAND when someone disagrees with you, or calls you out on something you're wrong about?
I don't care at all that you disagree with me. Most people here disagree. You, however, seem to think that it is obvious to the whole world that whatever you say is the only valid way to see anything, and that this is true even if you omit most of what you claim to mean because it is obvious to everyone.

Did you plan on answering my post or were you just going to quote each part, and then call me a whiner for daring to disagree with you?
I do not call you a whiner for disagreeing with me. I call you a whiner because of the way that you whine about how everyone knows that your partial statements should be immediately accepted by all as obvious, even when it is equally obvious that you have no idea in what my point may be, as long as you can state that it is wrong because you are the only person entitled to determine the subject of a thread that you did not start. Differences of opinion are reasonble and to be welcomed, but your whining is getting boring. Don't you think so, or do you like it that much?

20. Hermes the only thing that I said is obvious was my analogy.

Originally Posted by me
Take a 2 dimensional surface. Move west. As you turn more to the right, your velocity in the westward direction decreases because you are now moving more north. This is what I was saying, and it's obvious.
I then further explained it by plugging in a velocity:

Originally Posted by me
If you are going 100 mph west, then you turn 45 degrees to the north, you are now going about 71 MPH in the west direction, and 71 mph in the north direction. 71 < 100, right? That's less west, right?
Yet you continued to argue. What don't you get? I'm not sure how it can be any clearer - do you want me to draw you a triangle and tell you some trig formulas I learned in 9th grade?

21. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Hermes the only thing that I said is obvious was my analogy.
No need to repeat yourself, as you made your point clear last time. The only thing that you said was obvious was your analogy, and you did not say that too much before you actually provided your analogy.

Yet you continued to argue. What don't you get?

22. Good idea, let's move on. Or rather let's go back to

Originally Posted by hermes
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
which is the original statement I disagreed with.

If my interpretation of that statement (using what the words really mean) is incorrect, as you claim, maybe you can clarify what you meant for me?
Specifically how exactly do "causes" and "coincident to" mean anything even remotely similiar, since that was the only thing I could find that was an attempt to explain your statement.

23. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Good idea, let's move on. Or rather let's go back to
Cute. Let's move on, er... not. You are a funny guy.

Originally Posted by hermes
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
which is the original statement I disagreed with.

If my interpretation of that statement (using what the words really mean) is incorrect, as you claim, maybe you can clarify what you meant for me?
Surprise, you want to discuss what the words really mean? In YOUR mind, nearer means sooner, and therefore that is surely what I have to mean. Now, you want to discuss whether I realize what my words really mean in the eyes of the only valid opinion among us, in your mind that being you.

Specifically how exactly do "causes" and "coincident to" mean anything even remotely similiar, since that was the only thing I could find that was an attempt to explain your statement.
Every motion of a body in space requires time. As your body moves in space, it moves through time. If it were not to move through space, it would not move through time. What possible motion through time is there that is not co-incident with motion through space? None is my answer. It is motion through space that enables and causes motion through time. Motion through time is co-incident with motion through space, as the one cannot occur without the other.

24. Originally Posted by Hermes
Surprise, you want to discuss what the words really mean? In YOUR mind, nearer means sooner, and therefore that is surely what I have to mean. Now, you want to discuss whether I realize what my words really mean in the eyes of the only valid opinion among us, in your mind that being you.
Can you just cut the crap for a change? If "sooner" is not a reasonable meaning for "nearer" when speaking of an event, then explain why not. Don't just go "nya nya that's not what i meant stop assuming". What DID you mean? I think you are just being picky and my interpretation was perfectly reasonable, but if I'm wrong, then explain why.

Originally Posted by Hermes
If it were not to move through space, it would not move through time. What possible motion through time is there that is not co-incident with motion through space? None is my answer. It is motion through space that enables and causes motion through time. Motion through time is co-incident with motion through space, as the one cannot occur without the other.
What is the basis for this point of view? When you say "move through space" - relative to what? If we're the only two objects in the universe and I'm floating around in space and see you float by me at .5C, I'd think "Damn there goes Hermes, hauling some ass at .5C"
You'd think the exact same thing as me, as from your perspective it was me who just flew by at .5C, while you were perfectly stationary. And we'd both be right. So I'm not sure what you mean exactly by just saying "move through space".

25. Originally Posted by Neutrino
If "sooner" is not a reasonable meaning for "nearer" when speaking of an event, then explain why not.
The word sooner complete misses my point. People are born, evolve through their life, and then die. The more that they evolve through their life, the nearer they become to their death. What possible relationship to this might sooner have?

Don't just go "nya nya that's not what i meant stop assuming". What DID you mean? I think you are just being picky and my interpretation was perfectly reasonable, but if I'm wrong, then explain why.
Why do you think that you should be free to substitute your words for my words and then attribute them to you as though they are my words? Do I do that to you?

Originally Posted by Hermes
If it were not to move through space, it would not move through time. What possible motion through time is there that is not co-incident with motion through space? None is my answer. It is motion through space that enables and causes motion through time. Motion through time is co-incident with motion through space, as the one cannot occur without the other.
What is the basis for this point of view? When you say "move through space" - relative to what?
Oh, I think that I understand now. You are reading far, far too much into my words. This explains why you replace my words and refuse to allow me to deny that your words are mine. Let me ask you. Has there ever been any motion in any of the cells that makes up your body? For example, have you grown up at all since you were born? If yes, then your body has been involved in motion through space. The cells of your body have changed their spatial relationships. Relative to what, you ask? Relative to the impossible situation of your body not undergoing any change at all in space. Relative to your body being in the exact same positional relationship to the rest of the universe that it had on the day that you were born.

If we're the only two objects in the universe and I'm floating around in space and see you float by me at .5C, I'd think "Damn there goes Hermes, hauling some ass at .5C"
You'd think the exact same thing as me, as from your perspective it was me who just flew by at .5C, while you were perfectly stationary. And we'd both be right. So I'm not sure what you mean exactly by just saying "move through space".
The cells that make up your body are in motion. All of this motion takes time, and your body only has a limited abount of it before you die and your cells die. You seem to be taking a macro view wherein the observer is one unified body that constitutes a single reference frame from which to view another object. My view here is that your body is composed of a number of costituents parts, all of which are constantly in motion through space. This motion through space is the fundamental element of aging, the word that is commonly used when discussing motion through time. Aging is the process that leads us from birth to death.

26. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by Neutrino
If "sooner" is not a reasonable meaning for "nearer" when speaking of an event, then explain why not.
The word sooner complete misses my point. People are born, evolve through their life, and then die. The more that they evolve through their life, the nearer they become to their death. What possible relationship to this might sooner have?
I really think you are being purposefully obtuse. You said
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
Are "making your end ever nearer" and "your end coming sooner" really SO different that it "completely misses your point"? Are they different at ALL in fact? Please explain how those statements are different, since it's such a big issue apparently. Also, what exactly does it mean for "space" to "evolve through time"? That's some strange wording.

Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by me
Don't just go "nya nya that's not what i meant stop assuming". What DID you mean? I think you are just being picky and my interpretation was perfectly reasonable, but if I'm wrong, then explain why.
Why do you think that you should be free to substitute your words for my words and then attribute them to you as though they are my words? Do I do that to you?
Ok, you ignored my question again...just answer it instead of choosing to argue

The cells that make up your body are in motion. All of this motion takes time, and your body only has a limited abount of it before you die and your cells die
Yeah, so?

You seem to be taking a macro view wherein the observer is one unified body that constitutes a single reference frame from which to view another object. My view here is that your body is composed of a number of costituents parts, all of which are constantly in motion through space.
I don't see any benefit of doing so, but ok

This motion through space is the fundamental element of aging, the word that is commonly used when discussing motion through time. Aging is the process that leads us from birth to death.
I guess that's your attempt to tie it together? How exactly did we get to the topic of cells and aging, from the more general concept of space and time? How exactly can you justify extrapolating about any conclusions you reach about cells and aging to the much different space and time? Maybe we can stay a little more on topic

27. Originally Posted by Neutrino
I really think you are being purposefully obtuse.
You yourself are being quite funny, with this ridiculous tantrum on your part.

You said
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
Are "making your end ever nearer" and "your end coming sooner" really SO different that it "completely misses your point"? Are they different at ALL in fact?
I can't tell if you are trying to be this ridiculous, or if you are serious. I think that perhaps you really don't have a clue. I consider them to be completely different. As you age, you are nearer to your death, are you not? Do you really think that this makes your death come sooner, whatever that means to you? To me, your word is shallow and meaningless. Yet, for some reason you want to continue to argue that you should be allowed to put words in my mouth and completely ignore what I mean.

Also, what exactly does it mean for "space" to "evolve through time"? That's some strange wording.
You have shown that you have little ability to understand, and I have no desire to let you change my words around more and then attack your rewording of my words.

Ok, you ignored my question again...just answer it instead of choosing to argue
I am beginning to think that perhaps you are quite dense. You are the one who has time and again continued to demand that we argue. Perhaps I shall rephrase some of your rubbish and then attack your new wording. You certainly would not mind if I misrepresent your words, would you.

The cells that make up your body are in motion. All of this motion takes time, and your body only has a limited abount of it before you die and your cells die
Yeah, so?
I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make you drink. You are on your own.

You seem to be taking a macro view wherein the observer is one unified body that constitutes a single reference frame from which to view another object. My view here is that your body is composed of a number of costituents parts, all of which are constantly in motion through space.
I don't see any benefit of doing so, but ok
Obviously.

I guess that's your attempt to tie it together? How exactly did we get to the topic of cells and aging, from the more general concept of space and time?
I am sorry if you cannot understand simple relationships. It is pretty easy, but then you would have to actually read what I say instead of rewording it as you think it should be and then treating your words as what I really meant.

How exactly can you justify extrapolating about any conclusions you reach about cells and aging to the much different space and time? Maybe we can stay a little more on topic
It is obvious that you only wish to whine. Since you clearly do not understand the basics of space and time, as I gather on the basis of your irrelevant rants and your simplistic misrepresentation of my words, I think that there is no point in in trying to explain something with you that is clearly over your head.

28. If you just wanted to take your ball and go home, why didn't you say so instead of making me read a whole post?

29. Originally Posted by Neutrino
If you just wanted to take your ball and go home, why didn't you say so instead of making me read a whole post?

30. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Originally Posted by Imaplank
when you move any distance in the spatial dimentions you also move in the temporal dimension.
Originally Posted by Hermes
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
It seems like you guys have it backwards to me. I'm assuming by more "movement" you mean faster velocities, which actually slows down time for you, from the point of view of an observer. The more you move spatially, the less you move temporally (kind of like the more you are moving north, the less you are moving west). But from YOUR reference frame time ticks along the same as always.
dONT BE A TWONK! Learn properly what space-time is before making soch a stupid mixup.

I knew there would be one!!
Hardly anyone seems to ever get space-time correct from the very first then they wonder why they screw up on relativity.

31. Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by thevignesh
What i want to know is to know is that when we move in this earth how does space time affect us?
When you move your body, have you moved through space? Does this act take time? The space in your body only has so much time, and then you will die. Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
Perfectly correct

32. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Originally Posted by Neutrino
Originally Posted by Imaplank
when you move any distance in the spatial dimentions you also move in the temporal dimension.
Originally Posted by Hermes
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
It seems like you guys have it backwards to me. I'm assuming by more "movement" you mean faster velocities, which actually slows down time for you, from the point of view of an observer. The more you move spatially, the less you move temporally (kind of like the more you are moving north, the less you are moving west). But from YOUR reference frame time ticks along the same as always.
dONT BE A TWONK! Learn properly what space-time is before making soch a stupid mixup.

I knew there would be one!!
Hardly anyone seems to ever get space-time correct from the very first then they wonder why they screw up on relativity.
Can you produce better than your say-so, Imaplank, that it's backwards?
From wiki:
Originally Posted by wiki
In special relativity, clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation (the putatively stationary observer) are found to be running slower. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformations.
That agrees with what I said...
If I'm wrong I honestly DO want to know why. But some of the attitudes around here are so bad for some reason - my post wasn't attacking in the slightest degree yet you come back with "Don't be a twonk" ? Can rational discussion resume, and argumentative banter cease?

33. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Can you produce better than your say-so, Imaplank, that it's backwards?
So, now you are attributing your words to Imaplanck? I think that we should not be surprised. In case you forgot you might reread how your first post to this thread begins:

Originally Posted by Neutrino
It seems like you guys have it backwards to me.
And now you post this irrelevancy:

From wiki:
Originally Posted by wiki
In special relativity, clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation (the putatively stationary observer) are found to be running slower. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformations.
That agrees with what I said...
If I'm wrong I honestly DO want to know why.
It is truly a shame that no one remembers things as you do, not even the thread history. Do you really think that anyone will fall for your insincere claim to be just a poor misunderstood child?

But some of the attitudes around here are so bad for some reason - my post wasn't attacking in the slightest degree

Can rational discussion resume, and argumentative banter cease?
If you want to hold a meaningful discussion, it helps to care what the discussion is about for the other guy too. If you would try to understand what others are saying before you tell them how wrong they are in your perfect mind, you might find that they will laugh at you less and work with you more. Why not give it a try? Or, was the above citation of yours just more insincerity?

34. If you're done ranting, I'll wait for a response with a shred of civility from anyone interested. Thanks

35. Originally Posted by Neutrino
If you're done ranting, I'll wait for a response with a shred of civility from anyone interested. Thanks
Which means not from you. What a whiner you are. Poor little misunderstood child in you eyes, yes I am sorry to refer to you as a whiner.

36. Hermes if you want to address the content of my posts, or correct any misunderstandings I may or may not have I'd be happy to discuss it. I asked you countless times for clarification but you kept on complaining about my assumptions about what you meant and whatnot. That's why I kept asking for clarification! So please, correct my misunderstandings.
If you just want to bitch at me, I'm not interested in any dialogue to or from you. I think I've made that clear enough at this point.

37. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Hermes if you want to address the content of my posts, or correct any misunderstandings I may or may not have I'd be happy to discuss it. I asked you countless times for clarification but you kept on complaining about my assumptions about what you meant and whatnot. That's why I kept asking for clarification! So please, correct my misunderstandings.
If you just want to bitch at me, I'm not interested in any dialogue to or from you. I think I've made that clear enough at this point.
Yes, I agree that you have made your point clearly enough. You keep asking me to clarify. Yet, when I do, you ignore what I say. All the meanwhile, you whine that it is I who am arguing with you. Reread this thread. Tell me that you were not the first to begin this argument. Tell me if I did not tell you that your initial assumption was incorrect, and tell me if you did not ignore me for the sake of arguing that you know that your rephrasing of my statement must be what I meant. I am sorry if I do not accept your belief that you are the poor little misunderstood child who only wants to hold an honest discussion against the evil people who only want to argue. Yes, you have made your point clearly enough.

38. I really don't care who started what and who is right and wrong about what at this point. Right NOW this discussion has moved into the realm of absurd bitching and it's time to move on. This will be my last post on that subject so go ahead and get your last word in - hopefully you can put it behind you after that.

39. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Originally Posted by Neutrino
Originally Posted by Imaplank
when you move any distance in the spatial dimentions you also move in the temporal dimension.
Originally Posted by Hermes
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
It seems like you guys have it backwards to me. I'm assuming by more "movement" you mean faster velocities, which actually slows down time for you, from the point of view of an observer. The more you move spatially, the less you move temporally (kind of like the more you are moving north, the less you are moving west). But from YOUR reference frame time ticks along the same as always.
dONT BE A TWONK! Learn properly what space-time is before making soch a stupid mixup.

I knew there would be one!!
Hardly anyone seems to ever get space-time correct from the very first then they wonder why they screw up on relativity.
Can you produce better than your say-so, Imaplank, that it's backwards?
From wiki:
Originally Posted by wiki
In special relativity, clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation (the putatively stationary observer) are found to be running slower. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformations.
That agrees with what I said...
If I'm wrong I honestly DO want to know why. But some of the attitudes around here are so bad for some reason - my post wasn't attacking in the slightest degree yet you come back with "Don't be a twonk" ? Can rational discussion resume, and argumentative banter cease?
For a start you are confusing SR with space-time. Secondly Saying we have spacetime backwards isn't only due to this confusion it would make no sense.

We move forward in the spartial + backwards in time? is that what you are saying then?

Even accounting for SR what we said is still correct - YOU MOVE IN ONE YOU MOVE IN THE OTHER - SR doesn't alter that statement .

40. We move forward in the spartial + backwards in time? is that what you are saying then?
I'm not saying that. I thought you were making a statement about SR when you said
when you move any distance in the spatial dimentions you also move in the temporal dimension.
...meaning that more spatial motion causes your clock to "tick" faster. Which would be backwards. If you weren't referring to SR, then I'm not sure what to make of the statement. Yes when we move, we also move through time, but where's the relationship? I was pulling SR for the relationship,
Even accounting for SR what we said is still correct - YOU MOVE IN ONE YOU MOVE IN THE OTHER - SR doesn't alter that statement .
Sure, but as you move "more"through space you move "less" through time, relative to a "stationary" observer, and it seemed you were saying the opposite. If you weren't, ignore my comment as it doesn't apply to what you were saying. But I guess I just don't understand the point of the observation without a context like SR to frame it in.

41. Originally Posted by Neutrino
when you move any distance in the spatial dimentions you also move in the temporal dimension.
...meaning that more spatial motion causes your clock to "tick" faster. Which would be backwards.
Surprisingly, perhaps this really is the problem. You were reading too much into it. Look at the quote that you cited again. Anything about the greater the motion through space the greater the motion through time is not in the words themselves, but in your interpretation. You were not disputing the sentence, but all that you read into it. It seems that you misunderstood, which I tried several times to tell you. Note my very first response to you below about this very assumption of yours:

Originally Posted by Hermes
Originally Posted by Neutrino
Originally Posted by Hermes
Every movement of your body causes your space to evolve through its time, making your end ever nearer.
It seems like you guys have it backwards to me. I'm assuming by more "movement" you mean faster velocities,
Wrong asumption. I did not use the word "more". Reread the words that you cited, and try again.

42. Originally Posted by Neutrino
We move forward in the spartial + backwards in time? is that what you are saying then?
I'm not saying that. I thought you were making a statement about SR when you said
No I wasn't but it would make no odds if I applied relativity to it.
when you move any distance in the spatial dimentions you also move in the temporal dimension.
...meaning that more spatial motion causes your clock to "tick" faster. Which would be backwards.
What I said means nothing of the sort, you wrote that into my words for some reason.

Originally Posted by Neutrino
Even accounting for SR what we said is still correct - YOU MOVE IN ONE YOU MOVE IN THE OTHER - SR doesn't alter that statement .
Sure, but as you move "more"through space you move "less" through time, relative to a "stationary" observer, and it seemed you were saying the opposite. If you weren't, ignore my comment as it doesn't apply to what you were saying. But I guess I just don't understand the point of the observation without a context like SR to frame it in.
You actually dont because the length contracts too. So for a stationary observer the proportionality stays the same. This seems to be where your confusion lies.

43. Sorry for the name calling, I think you just didn't think it through. I thought you were some other type.

44. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
What I said means nothing of the sort, you wrote that into my words for some reason.
I thought it's what you meant. If the topic is spacetime and the relationship between space and time, I think it's pretty natural to think you were making a statement about SR but I was incorrect.

You actually dont because the length contracts too. So for a stationary observer the proportionality stays the same. This seems to be where your confusion lies.
Well I think I agree with you here, I'm not sure where my comments contradict it. The proportionality isn't what I was interested when I made my initial reply, it's the ticks of the clock - which slow down to the observer.

45. Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
Sorry for the name calling, I think you just didn't think it through. I thought you were some other type.
This thread overall is just way too tense and I certainly made my contributions. It seems to be back on the right track though I'm not convinced we really even have a disagreement. Let me have it though if something I said is factually incorrect :P

46. Originally Posted by Neutrino

It seems to be back on the right track though I'm not convinced we really even have a disagreement.
Yeah

47. Originally Posted by Vroomfondel
Originally Posted by thevignesh
What i want is how does it work for people like us sitting in the chair or walking down the street?
To put it simply, you dont. Relativity, which is part of modern physics, which means it deals with the extremes. Relativity deals with near light velocities. Thus, Space-time, which is a concept of relativity, isnt really used in everyday life.
Not quite true. If you want to use the GPS system, relativity had BETTER be taken into account. The satellites that carry the upside of the system gets its time referances screwed up by being 1) higher about the earth and 2) going fairly fast, both effects the time signals generated by the atomic clocks on board. If relativity was not taken into account, the GPS would be not much better than a dime store map. BTW, the relativistic calculations take place in the receivers you hold in your hand or on the dashboard of your car, it can't be prefigured in orbit because there are so many places it can be received from, each location will have a slightly differant solution to the relativistic formula's done so well you don't even know they are going on in the background.

 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