4 ms·

I really really want to understand this, but I can't get past your third sentence. No fault of your own, just me. But if you have anything I can read that exp

I really really want to understand this, but I can't get past your third sentence. No fault of your own, just me. But if you have anything I can read that explains it better I would be grateful!

cgs1019 13y ago
If you were heading due north at 100m/s, then changed your bearing to head slightly east without changing your overall speed, then you'd now be heading a bit less than 100m/s north and a bit more than 0m/s east. This is the same kind of thing, except that when "at rest" in space (relative to some fixed point) you're moving at the speed of light in a pure time direction. When you move in space, you divert some of that speed from the time direction into the space direction you're moving in. Overall you're still doing the speed of light, just in a different "direction".
ramidarigaz 13y ago
Here's an illustration, if it helps: http://imgur.com/YrlKW4Z http://imgur.com/YrlKW4Z The length of the red arrow is always the same. When your velocity is zero, your "time speed" is 1.0. As you begin to move faster, the arrow tilts towards the X axis, decreasing your "time speed".
- ars 13y ago
  It's not a great way of describing it though. The biggest issue is that the interchange between speed and time is not linear. So that graph doesn't make sense as displayed. At a minimum you have to understand that the time scale on the side of the graph is not linear, but rather exponential. And graphs with exponential scales are not easy to understand. Making it worse is that there are other things that can slow down time - namely acceleration.
  - ramidarigaz 13y ago
    Oop. You're right. I overlooked that. I put about 2 minutes into the illustration and didn't think it over very much (I probably should have). I was mostly responding to TomGullen's confusion about the GP's statement, rather than trying to paint a super-accurate picture.
    - ars 13y ago
      I wasn't really criticizing you as much as the concept of describing relativity as a tradeoff between the two. I don't think that helps enough to overcome the misunderstandings it can cause.
dntrkv 13y ago
I feel the same way. Every time I try to understand the speed of light and correlation between time/space, my brain just hits a dead end. "When you "move" through space, you're not changing the magnitude of your velocity vector, only its direction. So the more you move through space, the less you move through time." I can understand what is being said here word-by-word, but the concept as a whole does not make much sense to me.
lisper 13y ago
Try this: http://blog.rongarret.info/2011/09/faster-than-light-probably-not-but-you.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2011/09/faster-than-light-probabl...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
noonespecial 13y ago
Think of it like falling. If you fall straight down at your terminal velocity you always head for one point. If you are able to move side to side at a very large speed, you can theoretically fall towards all points under you at once. Or, if you will, 'stop' falling towards any one point at all.

I really really want to understand this, but I can't get past your third sentence. No fault of your own, just me. But if you have anything I can read that explains it better I would be grateful!

cgs1019 13y ago

If you were heading due north at 100m/s, then changed your bearing to head slightly east without changing your overall speed, then you'd now be heading a bit less than 100m/s north and a bit more than 0m/s east. This is the same kind of thing, except that when "at rest" in space (relative to some fixed point) you're moving at the speed of light in a pure time direction. When you move in space, you divert some of that speed from the time direction into the space direction you're moving in. Overall you're still doing the speed of light, just in a different "direction".

ramidarigaz 13y ago

Here's an illustration, if it helps: http://imgur.com/YrlKW4Z http://imgur.com/YrlKW4Z The length of the red arrow is always the same. When your velocity is zero, your "time speed" is 1.0. As you begin to move faster, the arrow tilts towards the X axis, decreasing your "time speed".

ars 13y ago
It's not a great way of describing it though. The biggest issue is that the interchange between speed and time is not linear. So that graph doesn't make sense as displayed. At a minimum you have to understand that the time scale on the side of the graph is not linear, but rather exponential. And graphs with exponential scales are not easy to understand. Making it worse is that there are other things that can slow down time - namely acceleration.
- ramidarigaz 13y ago
  Oop. You're right. I overlooked that. I put about 2 minutes into the illustration and didn't think it over very much (I probably should have). I was mostly responding to TomGullen's confusion about the GP's statement, rather than trying to paint a super-accurate picture.
  - ars 13y ago
    I wasn't really criticizing you as much as the concept of describing relativity as a tradeoff between the two. I don't think that helps enough to overcome the misunderstandings it can cause.

dntrkv 13y ago

I feel the same way. Every time I try to understand the speed of light and correlation between time/space, my brain just hits a dead end. "When you "move" through space, you're not changing the magnitude of your velocity vector, only its direction. So the more you move through space, the less you move through time." I can understand what is being said here word-by-word, but the concept as a whole does not make much sense to me.

lisper 13y ago

Try this: http://blog.rongarret.info/2011/09/faster-than-light-probably-not-but-you.html http://blog.rongarret.info/2011/09/faster-than-light-probabl...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

noonespecial 13y ago

Think of it like falling. If you fall straight down at your terminal velocity you always head for one point. If you are able to move side to side at a very large speed, you can theoretically fall towards all points under you at once. Or, if you will, 'stop' falling towards any one point at all.