# [time-nuts] A different way to think about time dilation?

Chris Albertson albertson.chris at gmail.com
Fri Jul 15 02:48:18 EDT 2016

```I think it must have some physical reality.  As I sit here, mostly not
moving KNOW I am traveling forward in time.   I think it is obvious
then that there are no motionless particles in four-space.  In fact
they all have the same velocity vector magnitude.

Next question is if the concept of "momentum" applies to four-space.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Andrew Rodland
<andrew at cleverdomain.org> wrote:
> Yes, the math works out. Whether it actually has physical meaning is
> kind of a philosophical question, but it's a useful tool.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_time#Examples_in_special_relativity
> is an example worth looking at.
>
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Chris Albertson
> <albertson.chris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is this a valid TN subject?  It's about time but a little off of the usual
>> subject of 10Mhz oscillators.
>>
>> I heard  of an alternate way to describe time dilation caused by velocity.
>>   I think this makes it easier to understand but I've not been able to
>> verify the math.  This alternate explanation also makes it easy to see why
>> we can never go faster than light.   But I've not seen a mathematical
>> derivation so it could be wrong or just an approximation.
>>
>> Here goes:
>>
>> 1) We assume a 4 dimensional universe with four orthogonal axis, x, y, z,
>> and time (t)
>> 2) assume that at all times EVERY object always has a velocity vector who's
>> magnitude is "c", the speed of light.  The magnitude of this vector (speed)
>> never changes and is the same for every particle in the universe.
>>
>> This at first seems a radical statement but how is moving at c much
>> different from assuming every partial is at rest in t's own reference
>> frame?  I've just said it is moving at c in it's own reference frame.  Both
>> c and zero are arbitrary speeds selected for connivance.
>>
>> How can this be?  I know I'm sitting in front of my computer and have not
>> moved an inch in the last four hours.  c is faster than that.   Yes you are
>> stationary in (x,y,z) but along the t axis you are moving one second per
>> second and I define one second per second as c.  Now you get smart and try
>> to move faster than c by pushing your chair backward in the Y direction at
>> 4 inches per second.  So you THINK your velocity magnitude is the vector
>> sum of c and 4 inch/sec which is greater than c.   BUT NO.  Your speed
>> along Y axis causes time dilation such that your speed along T is now
>> slower than 1 second/second.   In fact if you push your chair backward
>> along Y real fast at exactly c your speed along t axis is zero, time
>> stops.  Try pushing your chair at 0.7071 * c and you find yourself moving
>> through t at 0.7071 sec/sec and the vector sum is c.  You can NOT change
>> you speed from c all you can do to change the direction of the velocity
>> vector and your speed through time is determined by the angle between that
>> vector and the t axis.
>>
>> It works ok to just use one of the three spacial axis because we can always
>> define them such that (say) the Y axis points in the direction of motion.
>> So a plot of your speed in the dy,t plane covers the general case and looks
>> like an arc of radius c.
>>
>> If this works out then I have some work to do, like defining momentum as a
>> function of the area between the velocity vector and the t axis
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Chris Albertson
>> Redondo Beach, California
>> _______________________________________________
>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
>> and follow the instructions there.
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.

--

Chris Albertson
Redondo Beach, California
```