Opposite of the speed of light

[InfiniteNow]

So basically, what we measure is limited by our measuring instruments and abilities of interpretation, not some fundamental limite of the universe itself?

 

 

I'm good with that. :lol:

[watcher]

You've done nothing to disprove my point, and simply repeating yourself adds zero validitity to yours.

 

the zeros, the infinites and the undefined, the imaginaries etc are in the equations themselves. they are all over our equations.

 

it is us who refused the significance of their existence in our maths because we assumed it has no counterpart in the real physical world. we group these anomalies in a bracket and disregarded.

[InfiniteNow]

the zeros, the infinites and the undefined, the imaginaries etc are in the equations themselves. they are all over our equations.

 

it is us who refused the significance of their existence in our maths because we assumed it has no counterpart in the real physical world. we group these anomalies in a bracket and disregarded.

 

You are actually supporting my point. We don't know that these things are "asizal" or "atemporal," nor that it's "motion zero." All we know is that this is where our current math breaks.

 

That's all I said.

 

I reminded you that because our math breaks there, it wouldn't be accurate to call this asizal, atemporal, nor zero motion. You cannot make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

 

The only thing you can say about the singularity using our current math is that we don't really know.

[watcher]

You are actually supporting my point. We don't know that these things are "asizal" or "atemporal," nor that it's "motion zero." All we know is that this is where our current math breaks.

 

That's all I said.

 

I reminded you that because our math breaks there, it wouldn't be accurate to call this asizal, atemporal, nor zero motion. You cannot make such a statement with any degree of certainty.

 

The only thing you can say about the singularity using our current math is that we don't really know.

 

ah okay.

 

when i use words asizal and atemporal, i was also referring to its unknowable nature. but not as a result of ignorance or inability to measure, but something intrinsically part of equation that simply unmeasurable.

 

i don't mean zero motion as if it's in a standstill state. if a body is a c, it has zero motion relative to photon. same way you are still inside a speeding airplane.

 

i don't particularly blame the breakdown of math for this anomalies. when you encounter the expression 1/0. do you call this undefined math expression a break down in math? no. it is wanting and defies definition simply not for some lack of knowledge in math but simply because math cannot define it.

 

maybe it's just my conviction that "things that cannot be measure" exists in the nature as real as the things we can measure.

[watcher]

Watcher, how would you answer these three questions?

 

my time dilation is a bit rusty and since you gave me the liberty HOW would i answer these questions... i try the best i know how. your point can come later.

 

first i object that alice watch should register time in her watch. if she's at c relative to photon, her delta time must be zero. not one second. she would be 186,000 miles away and bob watch will read 1 sec.

 

why zero? imagine that instead of cruising in spacetime, the photon alice hitchhiked took a quantum leap and instantaneously appeared 186,000 miles away from bob. since alice is in sync with the photon, no time was registered. since time is only used to measure motion and there is no discrepancy in position, alice watch has nothing to measure. but in the einstein world, bob would have counted time 1 sec from the time alice went quantum to the time she appeared 186,000 miles away. the space covered by c.

 

I think you mischaracterize the imaginations of those with love affairs with math. I’d describe myself thus, but have rarely been faulted for a lack of wildness – see “A Math Student’s Campfire Tale About Time” for an example.

 

okay. maybe i just overreact from a polite sarcasm.

[InfiniteNow]

maybe it's just my conviction that "things that cannot be measure" exists in the nature as real as the things we can measure.

 

See... on a very fundamental level, I couldn't disagree with that conviction more. If something exists, then someone with sufficient resources and creativity (perhaps cleverness) can and will find a way to measure it.

 

If it exists, it can be measured... it just might not be easy to do so.

[watcher]

If it exists, it can be measured...

 

LOL. i'm not sure about that.

 

what i know is that things only exist the moment we measure them.

[lawcat]

 

Now this theory of relativity has already been proven but if this theory is true the opposite should also be true. So if the speed of light is around 3 000 000 meters per second then the slowest you can move is to simply not move at all.

Lets say your not moving at all, theretically time sould become infinite, density should become 0 and your mass should become 0.

.

 

Total momentum is fixed, so as you approach speed of light, mass approaches the mass of photon or 0, and density approaches 0, and time approaches 0.

 

The opposite is the black hole; a spinning point, where mass and density are infinite, and motion is all angular in the point; time approaches infinity.