Harv,

I do not dispute the fact that moving clocks run slower than stationary ones ("moving" and "stationary" of course implying we are talking about frames of reference. Would you please stop talking to me like I'm a third-grader?). That's beside the point.

What you, and a whole lot of people, don't understand, is that the phrase "movement along the t axis" does not make any sense at all. It's as meaningless as the question "when did time begin". Just as time cannot "begin", for beginning is an action and actions happen in time, you cannot "move through time" as movement already implies the concept of time.

The reason you can't "move through time" at any "speed" different than one second per second is the same reason why you can't move through space at a distance less than one meter per meter. It doesn't make any sense and reference frames have nothing to do with it, other than the fact that they cloud your mind and prevents you from seeing what's ultimately a trivial truth.

I don't expect you to understand any of that though...

• I never thought you were in third grade - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 16:59 UTC
  • I know you don't - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 18:08 UTC
    • I'm an eternalist - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 18:57 UTC
      • Boo! - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 19:25 UTC
        • Hmm... - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 19:49 UTC
          • Playing the shrink now? - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 20:38 UTC
            • Not exactly - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 21:30 UTC
              • In the end... - aurino - April 5, 2002 - 22:12 UTC
                • Aurino - harvey1 - April 5, 2002 - 22:30 UTC
                  • Hey, no worries; you were all babies once - dolphin - April 6, 2002 - 08:28 UTC
                  • Who's telling the nuclear power guys anything? - aurino - April 6, 2002 - 14:31 UTC
                • I won't belabor the point - harvey1 - April 6, 2002 - 21:16 UTC
              • Alan, that makes no sense - harvey1 - April 6, 2002 - 14:06 UTC
                • I agree Harv, with something - dolphin - April 11, 2002 - 08:13 UTC
      • Are we talking about phlogiston again? - doctordick - April 9, 2002 - 20:55 UTC
        • You mean the stuff that science dispelled - harvey1 - April 9, 2002 - 21:52 UTC
          • Phlogiston was popular among Harv scientists in its day - carefuluniverse - April 10, 2002 - 02:06 UTC
            • That's funny! - harvey1 - April 10, 2002 - 12:14 UTC
              • Thank you - carefuluniverse - April 10, 2002 - 17:21 UTC
          • I am humble also! - doctordick - April 10, 2002 - 17:00 UTC
        • "Are we talking about phlogiston again" - dolphin - April 11, 2002 - 09:05 UTC