🧵 Untitled Thread
Eos !!7Nk2/yfbs86 at Sun, 12 May 2024 19:56:28 UTC No. 16172730
I think the way that the concepts of relativity are taught fundamentally leaves people with an incomplete and incorrect understanding of the nature of space.
People are taught that our universe has a set speed limit called the speed of light and that nothing can go the speed of light because it just takes too much energy as you get closer and closer to that speed. But the way this is described is quite misleading. My little object can go as fast as I can accelerate it to, there isn't some speed limit to the object itself (well there are some factors that might limit my speed but they don't operate on the same principles as the magical speed limit people think the speed of light is). My object can go as fast as it wants, faster and faster as it approaches infinity (relative to a stationary observer of course). The thing is, someone standing still relative to my object, will never see it go past the speed of c, they will observe it being limited, slower and slower, and closer to c as its "true" speed gets faster and faster.
This is why I hate the term "speed of light", it births all of those misunderstandings of what that speed really means, like when people ask "If I'm on a train going at 99.999999999% the speed of light won't the light come out really slow?", of course it won't because that light is traveling away from you infinitely fast, and as an object with mass you cannot have infinite speed, you will never be able to keep up with that light, it's fundamentally in a different realm of existence from you.
These concepts shouldn't be hard to understand, but it is hammered into us from a young age how "light travels at the speed of light and you can't", and "the earth is moving at 30km/s" with frequent disregard for reference frames. It's no wonder many people find relativity so hard to understand, you might as well try to teach someone their second language at age 80. Don't you think the way we teach people should be changed?
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 20:40:12 UTC No. 16172816
>>16172730
Yeah it’s the speed space moves
That’s the way I like to conceptualise it
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 21:04:02 UTC No. 16172844
>>16172730
But anon... light travels at the speed of light and you can not. It would take more energy than the entire universe can provide.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 21:11:35 UTC No. 16172856
>>16172730
Basic spacetime trigonometry needs more attention. Light has finite speed but infinite rapidity.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 21:14:22 UTC No. 16172858
The more intuitive way to think about it is that *everything* moves through spacetime at the speed of light. It's simply a question of how quickly it's moving through the "space" part of spacetime versus how quickly it's moving through the "time" part of spacetime (as perceived by observers in other reference frames).
Light in a vacuum is travelling at c, but it's travelling at c exclusively in the "space" direction.
An object stationary relative to you is travelling at c, but it's travelling at c exclusively in the "time" direction relative to you.
Anything in between trades off motion through space relative to you for motion through time relative to you.
Changing an object's inertia through spacetime requires applying impulse/doing work to change how much of its motion is through "space" versus "time", but it's always going to be moving through spacetime at c. You can't accelerate something to any speed you want, because you're inherently limited to that upper limit of moving at c completely in the "space" direction.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 21:22:18 UTC No. 16172866
>>16172858
>Light in a vacuum is travelling at c, but it's travelling at c exclusively in the "space" direction.
This is plainly false. If light traveled exclusively in the space direction (relative to me), it would reach its destination with no time delay. Don't try to "explain" it to me; you are wrong.
Eos !!7Nk2/yfbs86 at Sun, 12 May 2024 21:42:49 UTC No. 16172896
>>16172844
Sure I can't move faster than light can from your point of reference that's true. And I won't be able to move faster than light from my perspective either. But I COULD theoretically go faster than 299,792,458 m/s from my own perspective.
Anonymous at Sun, 12 May 2024 23:41:04 UTC No. 16173019
>>16172858
You're partly right, but you've made a pretty significant error - as >>16172866 said, light does not travel exclusively in space. Rather, light follows 'null' trajectories in spacetime: Experiencing neither a change in proper time or proper space, and travelling with a unity slope in any coordinate spacetime frame.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 04:47:42 UTC No. 16173317
My interpretation is that light travels exclusively through space from it's own perspective. From the perspective of any object with mass it also travels through time.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 08:38:16 UTC No. 16173547
>>16172858
>>16173019
The correct way to say it would be - light moves as much through space as is possible and everything else moves through space less and through time more.
Any particle that would be faster than light, would have a slope of 1 < m < +inf, but everything we know is limited to the lower infinite triangle of a space-time coordinate system bounded by the x = t diagonal.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 08:43:25 UTC No. 16173553
>>16172730
this board is just one big psyop to make intelligent people expose themselves
yeah science has many wrong things in the consensus on purpose, and it is explicitly so osama bin laden cant blow up the whole earth in one go
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 09:25:36 UTC No. 16173580
>>16173317
Your interpretation is hogwash.
>from it's own perspective
Normally "from the perspective of X" in the context of special relativity means "in the rest frame of X". Light doesn't have a rest frame, but let's be charitable and pretend you said that something traveling at nearly the speed of light would travel nearly exclusively though space in its own rest frame. That's still wrong; by definition, an object doesn't travel through space at all in its own rest frame.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 11:13:52 UTC No. 16173681
>>16173547
>The correct way to say it would be - light moves as much through space as is possible and everything else moves through space less and through time more.
Good way of wording it.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 11:29:40 UTC No. 16173705
>>16172730
>Namefag
>Gets filtered by special relativity
Kek, every time.
>>My object can go as fast as it wants, faster and faster as it approaches infinity (relative to a stationary observer of course). The thing is, someone standing still relative to my object, will never see it go past the speed of c
Absolutely incorrect.
>>light is traveling away from you infinitely fast,
Wrong.
>>[[Special relativity]] concepts shouldn't be hard to understand
And yet, you've failed to understand them.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 12:31:36 UTC No. 16173787
>>16172730
>My object can go as fast as it wants
Unless it's near-massless or massless, no it can't
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 13:43:03 UTC No. 16173896
>>16172730
The limit only applies for round trips of lights reflected from mirror.
Anonymous at Mon, 13 May 2024 15:52:07 UTC No. 16174064
>>16173705
how about you explain in detail how it is incorrect then instead of just saying "wrong" to whatever you see with no further elaboration? people like you are why humans are still so stupid, atleast you'll never get a girlfriend so I wont have to worry about you being a part of the genepool