The Twins Paradox and the speed of light

Make itT_s² + S_s² = c²and you'd be almost there (c is the speed of light) although it's a complete bastardisation of how we write these things And now we have the "squared" version of your equation, you can't even consider a negative Ts - the equation is simply sharing out your speed-of-light velocity between the spatial and temporal components...So we have shown that "faster than the speed of light" is a nonsense concept, can you start to see where time dilation comes from now?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Yeah, I knew my little formula was going to make you cringe... but I'm glad I got the meaning across.Yes, it now makes perfect sense... for the first time in 10 years... it makes perfect sense.Thanks!

CS, in my attempt to understand it I'll try to answer you.Experienced time is the same *at* the 2 space-time coordinates, not between them.The affect of traveling is only relative to the one observing, to the one traveling the time hasn't been affected.In the attempt to connect the traveler with the observer, given that the observers time is the one that we are going by, time dilation comes into play.The way I understand it is that its *experienced* time, not an actual time change.I think...

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

Yeah, maybe we can get this one smoked down together. /nod Then why is his twin older than him? So, its not that the traveling really affects the time experienced, its only that time dilation occurs to the stationary twin's observation because the other one is moving? Don't hurt yourself

The time dilation would only exist if the clock for measuring time is at the observers end. The clock in the twins shuttle will not have slown down.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemiesI smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth.

Sorry to bring this back a full month later... but I tried explaining this to someone else in the relatively-simple terms that I have come to understand it in... and I ran into a question I couldn't answer.When I explained about how we are all "traveling" through time at the speed of light, someone asked "how do you know that".I didn't have an answer. The explanation that we got to in this thread still makes sense to me, but the explanation seems to rely on the idea that we are moving through time at the speed of light... and now I'm wondering how someone came to that conclusion.Oh... and before anyone answers "because the speed of light is the fastest speed possible"... doesn't that conclusion rely on the relationship between spatial and temporal velocity that we discussed in this thread?Bottom line, it seems like circular reasoning to me. I know there's got to be an answer here, but I can't figure out how anyone reached the conclusion.

It is simply what relativity shows us, and relativity (in its Special form) is the most successfully tested theory we have ever discovered, so we tend to trust what it tells us To understand it at a deepr level, I'm afraid it is time for four-dimensional vectors and tensors - all good fun, but not the easiest mathematics to explain over a pint...

You've got a pint?! I want a pint! Let me see if I can at least narrow down the question.Is there a reason that we currently think the speed of light is the fastest speed possible, without relying on the relationship between spatial velocity and temporal velocity?

"All things travel at the speed of light *ALL THE TIME* - it's just that mostly we travel in the temporal direction, so we don't notice anything other than time passing. What we call *speed*, is us rotating our speed-of-light velocity slightly out of the temporal direction and slightly into the spatial durections. The most *speed* we can ever achieve is what we get by rotating our speed-of-light velocity completely into the spatial directions... and surprise surprise, we see the greatest *speed* is the speed of light. Our velocity is ALWAYS the speed of light - so it is impossible to talk about going *faster*, just as it is impossible to talk about going *slower*"That is perfectly correct and in my opinion a good explanation, everything that exists is in motion, strangely even Quantum [Bosonic] FieldsEdited by V-Bird, : Accuracy.

Of course the quantum fields are not in motion - what the hell does that even mean?? The fields are at a much more fundemental level than any concept of motion. It's the same as claiming that electrons have smell. You really do have absolutely no clue about any of this...

Because motion is not 3 dimensional, motion is 4 dimensional, everything that exists is in motion and is therefore at fundament, energy.You have confounded your own assertion that you made in another thread.All motion is the fundamental property of all energy.Hope this helps.

With E=mc2 in respect to the twin paradox and the speedlimit of light.If the entire universe is relative to the speedlimit of light then the traveller is not violating the speedlimit of light in the expansion of the heavens if its only the observer that has moved forward in time.P.S. Maybe string theory will prove E=mc2 fits string theory better than atomic theory? Though a whole lot of energy was released through the atomic bomb thru aggitation? Heck there is a whole lot of energy just when one alpha particle is expelled. To say no motion when neutrons have momentum and energy as do protons, etc...Think when they say E=mc2 has no momentum energy is just a play on words like an Enron accountant cancelling out until he has nothing because a whole lot of radioactive elements are decaying and the energy given off thru decay is caused by mass having momentum and thats energy. There is talk of making batteries for labtops from the energy given off thru the momentum of radioactive decay.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Like this? Sorry for the crappy MSPaint graphs!Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

Yes, that's the idea. Though the units are a bit confused, as we don't measure distance through time in meters but in seconds Note that I am glossing over a few bits with this picture. If I have some at some stage I may try to elucidate, but it does get a bit more confusing