How Can The Speed Of Light Be Faster Than Time Itself?

[xyz]

9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second = 0.0288mile per second=46.3491072 meters per second

 

earth's circumference/time=24901/86400=approx 0.0288 mile per second=approx 46 meters a second relative movement to the Suns movement


c=299 792 458 m / s

299 792 458 / 46.3491072=*6468138.7865 faster than time

Edited October 31, 2015 by xyz

[CraigD]

How Can The Speed Of Light Be Faster Than Time Itself?

This question doesn’t make sense.

 

Time is one of the 3 fundamental physical quantities. It has dimension T.

 

The speed of light is a speed, a quantity derived from the fundamental quantities Length and Time. It has dimension LT^-1 (which can also be written L/T).

 

It’s not sensible to compare quantities of different dimension.

 

The statement “the speed of light is faster than time” (which compares dimension LT^-1 to T) is a nonsensical as “the mass of a hydrogen atom is less than the diameter of the Earth” (which compares dimension M to L).

 

 

9,192,631,770 Hertz (Hz, or cycles per second)=1 second ...

This equation is similarly nonsensical. 9192631770 Hz has dimension T^-1, while 1 s has T. you can’t equate quantities of different dimension.

 

I’m guessing you got the number 9192631770 from the BIPM definition of the second,

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.

This definition doesn’t say “1 second = 9192631770 Hz”, which incorrectly compares T to T^-1. It says “1 second = duration of the transition between the 2 hyperfine levels of cesium 133 multiplied by 9192631770”, which correctly compares T to T.

 

“1 second” is a quantity of T, as is “the duration of the transition between the 2 hyperfine levels of cesium 133”. 9192631770 is a dimensionless quantity, or “pure number”. Multiplying a physical quantity by a pure number doesn’t change its dimension.

[sanctus]

CraigD, so the SI def actually takes a model for definition, since we are unable to cool Caesium down to 0K...that is quite surprising!!

[NotBrad]

Technically though can we "truly" cool any atom down to absolute zero? I mean we can approach it, but doesn't the law of diminishing returns prevent us from ever actually achieving it with any atom regardless of element?

 

Also cool thought here just to spark some discussion, what if the substance physicists currently label as "dark matter" is actually just atoms which have actually reached 0K? And the only reason we cannot observe them is because any light that makes contact with them is instantaneously absorbed and converted entirely into thermal energy?

 

Just some food for thought.

 

edit:

Though of course with my primitive understanding of physics I may be completely wrong, but as far as I know there is no way to disprove my theory.

Edited November 3, 2015 by NotBrad

[xyz]

How Can The Speed Of Light Be Faster Than Time Itself?

This question doesn’t make sense.

 

Time is one of the 3 fundamental physical quantities. It has dimension T.

 

The speed of light is a speed, a quantity derived from the fundamental quantities Length and Time. It has dimension LT^-1 (which can also be written L/T).

 

It’s not sensible to compare quantities of different dimension.

 

The statement “the speed of light is faster than time” (which compares dimension LT^-1 to T) is a nonsensical as “the mass of a hydrogen atom is less than the diameter of the Earth” (which compares dimension M to L).

 

 

This equation is similarly nonsensical. 9192631770 Hz has dimension T^-1, while 1 s has T. you can’t equate quantities of different dimension.

 

I’m guessing you got the number 9192631770 from the BIPM definition of the second,

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K.

This definition doesn’t say “1 second = 9192631770 Hz”, which incorrectly compares T to T^-1. It says “1 second = duration of the transition between the 2 hyperfine levels of cesium 133 multiplied by 9192631770”, which correctly compares T to T.

 

“1 second” is a quantity of T, as is “the duration of the transition between the 2 hyperfine levels of cesium 133”. 9192631770 is a dimensionless quantity, or “pure number”. Multiplying a physical quantity by a pure number doesn’t change its dimension.

 

Hello Craig, it is a well known fact the origin of time was based on relative motion of the earth compared the sun using primitive techniques such as sticks in the ground and sun dials. We set a rate of time by this, history did not realise that they were actually defining a second based on motion that was equal to a distance. Consider a shadow moves, it moves a distance relative to the movement of the sun and the earth. Consider a clock, the hour hand moves twice around 360 degrees to equal 24 hrs that is equal to 24,901 miles of distance a point as spun on earth at the equator relative to the sun. 

24,901_mile / 86400_s = 0.288 miles per second relative to the sun which is approx 46 meters a second. 

 

History set a one  second rate  to equal a distance of 46 m/s without realisation. 

 

This is accurate information of the method failure, you can not measure a unit of time without measuring some sort of movement/rate.

 

 

This then takes us to the realisation that the earth's spin speed was not constant, so we then decided to use an atomic clock and the rate of the Caesium atom to define a second, however a fundamental  flaw was not consider when we matched the frequency rate of the Caesium atom to the old second based on motion, 

 

A=1s=46m/s

 

B=1s=9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation

 

A=B

 

Nothing was changed and one second on the Caesium atom at ground state was equal to a clock second that was defined by motion. 

 

 

So now in considering this, if we consider 1 second is equal to a distance denoted by history , and the distance is 46m, then something is wrong when we consider the speed of light as shown in the earlier calculation using the 46m comparison and maths. 

 

 

It does not work out correctly something is wrong. 

[NotBrad]

Just a simple thought there xyz, but humans consciously exist within and are aware of only 4 dimensions. We can perceive time, and we can perceive the three axes of space. Until proven otherwise our most fundamental perception of said dimensions can only be perceived relative to the others. Using that logic regardless of how true your statement is, we cannot physically measure or define an unknown quantity without relating it to a known quantity. It does not matter that our perception of time is skewed, because humans only exist within the dimension of time as part of a linear relationship. Unless a second plane of time can be discovered that can be measured in the same unit, we lack the ability to perceive it relative to anything else other than distance.

*drops mic*

Edited November 4, 2015 by NotBrad

[xyz]

Just a simple thought there xyz, but humans consciously exist within and are aware of only 4 dimensions. We can perceive time, and we can perceive the three axes of space. Until proven otherwise our most fundamental perception of said dimensions can only be perceived relative to the others. Using that logic regardless of how true your statement is, we cannot physically measure or define an unknown quantity without relating it to a known quantity. It does not matter that our perception of time is skewed, because humans only exist within the dimension of time as part of a linear relationship. Unless a second plane of time can be discovered that can be measured in the same unit, we lack the ability to perceive it relative to anything else other than distance.

*drops mic*

The problem I see is that people of the present and the past clearly do not understand what time is.   Most people refer to Einstein's space time as time,  XYZ and the forth dimension of time, however this is clearly misunderstood by so many people. Space-time is a virtual representation of space of journeys that have not yet been taken, XYZ vectors of space that have no physical existence, and time the forth dimension that represents how long a journey will take.  

Real time is that what exists in us, our own dimensions of XYZ and our own dependent time that is independent of any other time existing in the 5th dimension of space.   The simplicity of realisation is this, when we are looking at a clock, we are observing our own time and nothing else. 

 

From my blog-

 

1-Time is an arbitrary creation by mankind to synchronise their everyday activities.

1.1- This state of time is denoted by the relative movement of the earth’s spin relative to the motion of the sun. We nowadays use clocks to represent the twenty four hours or so of rotation relative to the two bodies,  An invention of a measurement that would go on to synchronise our every day activities and to aid in the scaling of space and  the measurement of speed and such.

2-Time is virtual representation of the dimension of the whole of space and virtual vectors of space.(space-time)

2.1– This state of time is a virtual representation of estimation, I.e we can calculate a journey of one mile will take one hour to travel at a  constant speed of  1 mph.   Albert Einstein created space-time and XYZ, virtual representations of dimensions of space to represent virtual journey paths through space that have not yet taken place.

3-Time is the independent rate of decay of independent physical bodies/particles. (such as the Caesium atom)

3.1- This state of time is all of existence, a rate that remains constant if the observer remains stationary in an initial reference frame and a constant of gravitational influence.  Motion stretches this time, a change in rate of time by displacement of the gravitational force constant having effect on frequency.

Principle rule 1 – All independent observers of time, independently occupy all three states of time, at the same time.

Principle rule 2- State 1 and state 2 are dependent for all observers, where as state 3 is independent for all observers.

Principle rule 3- principle 1 and 2 are unarguable axioms and this explained the full structure of what time is, the single manifold being all that is of matter occupying all three states of time instantaneously.

 

 

model - forgive the title . 

 

https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/11/05/chew-on-this-science/

Edited November 5, 2015 by xyz

[NotBrad]

So... am I right?

 

From what you said I gather... yes?

 

Not sure what to reply to that, the terminology seems very specific and explanatory but very arbitrary at the same time. I do not know whether or not that is a summary produced by yourself to simplify the concepts of string theory or if you just took that definition directly from a physics textbook. Either way, the fact that there are more dimensional axes than can be perceived by humans is irrelevant in the perception of time from a scientific or a philosophical standpoint outside of theoretical discussion.

 

Unless we discover some means by which to perceive additional axes of time their presence and effect are negligible. If we cannot see it, feel it, or even understand it, it cannot be proven. And if we exist consciously outside of it, we can only observe it. 

[xyz]

So... am I right?

 

From what you said I gather... yes?

 

Not sure what to reply to that, the terminology seems very specific and explanatory but very arbitrary at the same time. I do not know whether or not that is a summary produced by yourself to simplify the concepts of string theory or if you just took that definition directly from a physics textbook. Either way, the fact that there are more dimensional axes than can be perceived by humans is irrelevant in the perception of time from a scientific or a philosophical standpoint outside of theoretical discussion.

 

Unless we discover some means by which to perceive additional axes of time their presence and effect are negligible. If we cannot see it, feel it, or even understand it, it cannot be proven. And if we exist consciously outside of it, we can only observe it. 

I have re-read your post and yes I thought you was saying what I was saying. It explains the specific nature of time, a  single interwoven manifold of XYZ and time being of individual observers occupying different positions in the 5th dimension of shapeless ,timeless , infinite space. 

The writing I posted is from myself, my blog on wordpress, I do not know string theory to be honest, I have a ''rubber ball'' theory. 

[NotBrad]

I have re-read your post and yes I thought you was saying what I was saying. It explains the specific nature of time, a  single interwoven manifold of XYZ and time being of individual observers occupying different positions in the 5th dimension of shapeless ,timeless , infinite space. 

The writing I posted is from myself, my blog on wordpress, I do not know string theory to be honest, I have a ''rubber ball'' theory. 

I see. That still does not give me a solid conclusion on whether or not our opinions are parallel or perpendicular to one-another, but I assume from your lack of additional input within your post that we are in agreement.

 

I think that regardless of anything else, the asking of the question is what creates an answer. The answer does not matter so much as the question having to be asked. So long as we remain ignorant of the problem the solution does not exist. Think of it like this, in quantum physics (and scientific studies in general), nothing is technically happening unless it is being observed, and in the same way so long as we do not ask a question, there is neither an answer, or a need for one. This is likely why religion was created in the first place, simple answers for simple questions, and meaning to life. Science on the other hand is the pursuit of the reason for an answer, which has allowed us to open our eyes only to be blinded by the light we once enjoyed, and lose the ability to see light entirely due to our ignorance. That is the true meaning of life, and what it is to be god.

 

to see and understand the light in its entirety is to be ignorant of its warmth as well.

 

to be god is to not know life

 

That is a simple idea am I right? By understanding the meaning of life is to not be part of it. In order to understand anything objectively, one must completely remove themselves from it so as to see it from the outside.

Edited November 6, 2015 by NotBrad

[xyz]

I see. That still does not give me a solid conclusion on whether or not our opinions are parallel or perpendicular to one-another, but I assume from your lack of additional input within your post that we are in agreement.

 

I think that regardless of anything else, the asking of the question is what creates an answer. The answer does not matter so much as the question having to be asked. So long as we remain ignorant of the problem the solution does not exist. Think of it like this, in quantum physics (and scientific studies in general), nothing is technically happening unless it is being observed, and in the same way so long as we do not ask a question, there is neither an answer, or a need for one. This is likely why religion was created in the first place, simple answers for simple questions, and meaning to life. Science on the other hand is the pursuit of the reason for an answer, which has allowed us to open our eyes only to be blinded by the light we once enjoyed, and lose the ability to see light entirely due to our ignorance. That is the true meaning of life, and what it is to be god.

 

to see and understand the light in its entirety is to be ignorant of its warmth as well.

 

to be god is to not know life

 

That is a simple idea am I right? By understanding the meaning of life is to not be part of it. In order to understand anything objectively, one must completely remove themselves from it so as to see it from the outside.

You have a good mind Brad.   

 

''but humans consciously exist within and are aware of only 4 dimensions. We can perceive time, and we can perceive the three axes of space''

 

 

edit - humans consciously exist as the forth dimension within their own 3 dimensions. We can perceive virtual time, and we can perceive the three virtual vectors of space to be the 5th dimension that our 4 dimensions exist in and move through. 

 

 

To understand the meaning of life , is to dissociate yourself from life, to be a ''simpleton'' , to forget all knowledge and think about things fresh, when I consider light, I am considering it with ignorance to its warmth, I consider what I am seeing and what actually happens.

 

But strangely we seem to be on the same wavelength in thought.

 

 

God = space, god is a word for space , there is comparisons that work, God pre-dates the word space in my opinion but lets not get into that topic.

 

 

If your not conscious, time does not exist, time is a state of conciousness within 3 dimensions of ourselves.

 

 

added- you might like this 

 

https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/becoming-a-self-consciousness-body/

Edited November 7, 2015 by xyz

[NotBrad]

Certainly a very interesting read. But I prefer to look at it from the omnipotent creator perspective, even though I am an atheist. I believe that the most fundamental answer to the meaning of life is the question of why. 

 

The understanding of why, as we have both come to an agreement on. is that regardless of what the question is, to not take things as face value and enjoy them is to neglect the beauty of their existence. We as a society have in most ways been against the concept of humans "playing god" and it has become a staple of modern post-apocalyptic films where either artificial intelligence or a new strain of virus is released upon the world through some accident. But I believe that is too narrow minded in its approach to the issue.

 

I personally know that historically religion has opposed progress at almost every major crossroad of progress. Regardless of whether you believe that they were worried about money or power being lost because of people losing faith is irrelevant, because this is the root of the concept and I always believe in avoiding the "modern" use of ideas rather than their fundamental roots. But more on topic, I believe that the act of discovering the answers to the worlds scientific mysteries is to play god. Because as defined in most religions, things just are, there is no reason other than "god made it that way" which defines anything that was beyond our reach at the time of the advent of an organized religion is hereby and forever more defined as "playing god."

 

And look what it has gotten us! We squander what technology we have on personal whims while our more primal brethren are allowed to perish without notice. I think the pending collapse of post scientific method society is due entirely to the pursuit of more. A cancerous greed if you will, that has driven humans to believe we are any more than than those creatures that share this world with us. Our parasitic lust for understanding is driven by our own complacency with always having more, faster. In a society like ours today where a phone comes out every year and is almost half again as powerful as it's predecessor gives us an imbalanced perception of what we should expect in exchange for our efforts. There was a time where a new device could take several lifetimes to be invented and improved, But now we not only ignore the truly marvelous nature of our progress, but also become impatient with it and demand more. I am a man of science, but I do not believe that it will end well for humankind.

 

what is the difference between a parasite and a virus? 

The virus kills the host in the process of reproduction and moves on to the next once done, while the parasite simply takes no more than is necessary to survive and in some cases forms a symbiotic relationship that benefits the host.

 

Humans were once satisfied, content even, with what little they had. Raising children in a society where everything is easily accessible and education is given out freely, the value of everything plummets, because to understand something is to remain ignorant of how truly amazing it is. And the desire to understand why is the desire to play god. If we were to simply accept that there need not be an answer we would be a lot happier.

 

But make no mistake, scientist today fool themselves with ambition and false progress. They behave as if what they are doing will solve all the problems in the world, but they research how rather than why even though the problems facing the world today stem primarily stem from a disconnect between the natural state of acceptance that the why does not matter, and the scientific answers of how which fail to answer the question but also rob people of the ignorance necessary to truly be content.

 

I think therefore I am.

 

Famous quote, that is all a human truly needs. Nothing more, nothing less. The average person only thinks about the greater perspective when given the opportunity to reflect upon it, but keep them ignorant and they will live out their entire lives without needing an answer. The moment you tell them to start questioning their surroundings, they can no longer be content with what they had before, because knowing that there could be more is knowing that you have less.

Edited November 7, 2015 by NotBrad

[xyz]

Certainly a very interesting read. But I prefer to look at it from the omnipotent creator perspective, even though I am an atheist. I believe that the most fundamental answer to the meaning of life is the question of why. 

 

The understanding of why, as we have both come to an agreement on. is that regardless of what the question is, to not take things as face value and enjoy them is to neglect the beauty of their existence. We as a society have in most ways been against the concept of humans "playing god" and it has become a staple of modern post-apocalyptic films where either artificial intelligence or a new strain of virus is released upon the world through some accident. But I believe that is too narrow minded in its approach to the issue.

 

I personally know that historically religion has opposed progress at almost every major crossroad of progress. Regardless of whether you believe that they were worried about money or power being lost because of people losing faith is irrelevant, because this is the root of the concept and I always believe in avoiding the "modern" use of ideas rather than their fundamental roots. But more on topic, I believe that the act of discovering the answers to the worlds scientific mysteries is to play god. Because as defined in most religions, things just are, there is no reason other than "god made it that way" which defines anything that was beyond our reach at the time of the advent of an organized religion is hereby and forever more defined as "playing god."

 

And look what it has gotten us! We squander what technology we have on personal whims while our more primal brethren are allowed to perish without notice. I think the pending collapse of post scientific method society is due entirely to the pursuit of more. A cancerous greed if you will, that has driven humans to believe we are any more than than those creatures that share this world with us. Our parasitic lust for understanding is driven by our own complacency with always having more, faster. In a society like ours today where a phone comes out every year and is almost half again as powerful as it's predecessor gives us an imbalanced perception of what we should expect in exchange for our efforts. There was a time where a new device could take several lifetimes to be invented and improved, But now we not only ignore the truly marvelous nature of our progress, but also become impatient with it and demand more. I am a man of science, but I do not believe that it will end well for humankind.

 

what is the difference between a parasite and a virus? 

The virus kills the host in the process of reproduction and moves on to the next once done, while the parasite simply takes no more than is necessary to survive and in some cases forms a symbiotic relationship that benefits the host.

 

Humans were once satisfied, content even, with what little they had. Raising children in a society where everything is easily accessible and education is given out freely, the value of everything plummets, because to understand something is to remain ignorant of how truly amazing it is. And the desire to understand why is the desire to play god. If we were to simply accept that there need not be an answer we would be a lot happier.

 

But make no mistake, scientist today fool themselves with ambition and false progress. They behave as if what they are doing will solve all the problems in the world, but they research how rather than why even though the problems facing the world today stem primarily stem from a disconnect between the natural state of acceptance that the why does not matter, and the scientific answers of how which fail to answer the question but also rob people of the ignorance necessary to truly be content.

 

I think therefore I am.

 

Famous quote, that is all a human truly needs. Nothing more, nothing less. The average person only thinks about the greater perspective when given the opportunity to reflect upon it, but keep them ignorant and they will live out their entire lives without needing an answer. The moment you tell them to start questioning their surroundings, they can no longer be content with what they had before, because knowing that there could be more is knowing that you have less.

Interesting thoughts, compared to a brick we all are ''Gods''.  I consider I know everything, but I do not consider myself to be a God.    If I was to define a ''God'' , personally I would define that if there was an entity outside of our existence, then it maybe a scientist and we may live inside a nuclear reactor because that is where thought and logic directs us at this present time. 

 

I do understand what you are saying though, don't try to fix something that is not broken, science 'fix' things that are not broken all the time making new things that are not needed.  However something's  are needed, such as the purification of water, medicines and such.  

 

 

I do not understand why you say science will collapse, I am for science to a degree, however they have it all so wrong which I feel they should stop denying simple premise for argument and look at it. 

 

 

I think therefore I am concious.....I think so therefore I am time.  

 

 

Time does not matter to a brick.  Time can be measured without a distance, it is interesting that a brick can not count, any individual can count their own existence by counting it until they die. 

Edited November 7, 2015 by xyz

[NotBrad]

Interesting thoughts, compared to a brick we all are ''Gods''.  I consider I know everything, but I do not consider myself to be a God.    If I was to define a ''God'' , personally I would define that if there was an entity outside of our existence, then it maybe a scientist and we may live inside a nuclear reactor because that is where thought and logic directs us at this present time. 

 

I do understand what you are saying though, don't try to fix something that is not broken, science 'fix' things that are not broken all the time making new things that are not needed.  However something's  are needed, such as the purification of water, medicines and such.  

 

 

I do not understand why you say science will collapse, I am for science to a degree, however they have it all so wrong which I feel they should stop denying simple premise for argument and look at it. 

 

 

I think therefore I am concious.....I think so therefore I am time.  

 

 

Time does not matter to a brick.  Time can be measured without a distance, it is interesting that a brick can not count, any individual can count their own existence by counting it until they die. 

I am only saying that the definition of a "god" is subjective. To be specific, a god is anything that is sufficiently advanced that actions and ideas associated are beyond the comprehension of the viewer, but also within the understanding of he/she who is being defined as a god. If I were to go back to the stone ages with today's technology and act the way I do today, this concept would not apply because the very concept of a god had not arisen yet. But if I were to go back to the high middle ages, I certainly would appear angelic or divine given that I am a good half foot taller than the average height of the time, wear clothing far outside of the norm at the time, and know more about their history than any of them do. I would be able to predict historic events and the outcomes of battles before they even happen, I can use modern weapons to kill a man without touching him, use modern medicine to heal the sick from disease that no one could survive. these are all thing that we believe only a god could do right? Only god knows the future, only god can smite, only god can heal, these are not concepts that have been left behind, many follow them today in a much more liberal way to allow for inaccuracies within their own religious texts. Clarke's third law is that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and any of our technology today would certainly seem like magic to those who lived even one hundred years ago. So by that logic we are gods compared to our ancestors, we live twice as long, grow taller, stronger, and faster. We grow smarter.

 

Imagine this, just as an idea of how this could work.

 

Imagine that the astronauts returning from the moon for whatever reason ended up going back in time to the middle ages and over Britain. So they fall from the sky in a massive ball of fire traveling faster than anything else seen before, they pull out their chutes and the shuttle slowly settles to the ground, still smoking. They landed in London and huge crowds are gathering to see what happened. Then they emerge, men who are taller than any of the others there by a good half a head, clothed all in white that is brighter than anything seen before, their shuttle is covered in a very gold-like metallic metal with patches of white that has been blackened with soot. They step out onto the ground in front of everybody there and then begin conversing in a familiar but unknown language.

 

Now view from the local's perspective

 

I don't know about you but if I saw a bunch of giants wearing all white with glossy silver metalwork on their clothing emerge from a smoking gold inlaid white ship that fell from the sky as a ball of fire, I would think they were angels at the very least, if not gods. So by this perspective, humans were already gods in the 1960's and 70's.

Edited November 7, 2015 by NotBrad

[xyz]

I am only saying that the definition of a "god" is subjective. To be specific, a god is anything that is sufficiently advanced that actions and ideas associated are beyond the comprehension of the viewer, but also within the understanding of he/she who is being defined as a god. If I were to go back to the stone ages with today's technology and act the way I do today, this concept would not apply because the very concept of a god had not arisen yet. But if I were to go back to the high middle ages, I certainly would appear angelic or divine given that I am a good half foot taller than the average height of the time, wear clothing far outside of the norm at the time, and know more about their history than any of them do. I would be able to predict historic events and the outcomes of battles before they even happen, I can use modern weapons to kill a man without touching him, use modern medicine to heal the sick from disease that no one could survive. these are all thing that we believe only a god could do right? Only god knows the future, only god can smite, only god can heal, these are not concepts that have been left behind, many follow them today in a much more liberal way to allow for inaccuracies within their own religious texts. Clarke's third law is that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" and any of our technology today would certainly seem like magic to those who lived even one hundred years ago. So by that logic we are gods compared to our ancestors, we live twice as long, grow taller, stronger, and faster. We grow smarter.

 

Imagine this, just as an idea of how this could work.

 

Imagine that the astronauts returning from the moon for whatever reason ended up going back in time to the middle ages and over Britain. So they fall from the sky in a massive ball of fire traveling faster than anything else seen before, they pull out their chutes and the shuttle slowly settles to the ground, still smoking. They landed in London and huge crowds are gathering to see what happened. Then they emerge, men who are taller than any of the others there by a good half a head, clothed all in white that is brighter than anything seen before, their shuttle is covered in a very gold-like metallic metal with patches of white that has been blackened with soot. They step out onto the ground in front of everybody there and then begin conversing in a familiar but unknown language.

 

Now view from the local's perspective

 

I don't know about you but if I saw a bunch of giants wearing all white with glossy silver metalwork on their clothing emerge from a smoking gold inlaid white ship that fell from the sky as a ball of fire, I would think they were angels at the very least, if not gods. So by this perspective, humans were already gods in the 1960's and 70's.

 

Well yes the definition of ''god'' is subjective to however is perceived.  Of cause people would think a 'time traveller'' or maybe even an alien life to be a ''god'' dependent to the ''gods'' knowledge.   I have often imagined travelling to medieval times , don't laugh. in a tank, you would certainty be a ''god'' .  I understand your subjective views and agree with them totally.  However I do also consider that God was an earlier word for space. But this is taking the thread off topic, my apologies. 

Edited November 7, 2015 by xyz

[xyz]

added maths - 24901/360=1 degree=approx 69 mile = =approx 240 seconds

 

 

 

 

 

69/240= approx 0.2875 mile per second=0.2875*3600=approx 1035 mph

Edited November 8, 2015 by xyz

[CraigD]

Hello Craig, it is a well known fact the origin of time was based on relative motion of the earth compared the sun using primitive techniques such as sticks in the ground and sun dials.

I don’t believe there’s a well-defined scientific consensus about the origin of the measurement of time. Do you have any links or references supporting your claim :QuestionM

 

The earliest sundial or shadow clock is reliably dated to about 1500 BC. Some believe that large monuments, obelisks, dating back to 3500 BC were used as sundial gnomons, but this view is contested (sources: Wikipedia article History of timekeeping devices, description of Sarah Symons’ rejection of Borchardt and Bruins’ theories about Egyptian obelisks)

 

There are many ways to measure durations. Measuring changes in shadows cast by sundials is but one. Not all ways involve measuring lengths. The most common method, by number of devices, is counting the oscillations in the voltage applied to a quartz crystal in the clock signal generating chip of a computer. Arguably the most ancient method is counting your breaths or heartbeats.

 

:naughty: This discussion is wandering far from the thread’s original question “how can the speed of light be faster than time itself”. That question, I think, is answered simply by pointing out that the question makes an error, comparing a quantity of dimension LT^-1 to one of dimension T, as I explained at more length in post #2.