I posted this up on LJ and my blog and a bunch of other places, so if you've already seen it there, sorry.

Ok... so I'm reading The Elegant Universe and I was thinking about Special Relativity... Bear with me here, while i try to phrase this question. So, objects are always moving at light speed through the (so-called) 4th dimension (Time) and what we think of as motion is really just a measure of how much of an object's speed is being diverted to the passage through the other three dimensions. Therefore, a photon that was created at the Big Bang is always the same age because it is always moving at light speed... but how is this possible? The photon is moving around the other 3 dimensions of the universe. I can see the glow of my montor, I can see around my room, which tells me that light is reaching earth and my eyes. And since nothing is stationary, this light is moving. So it is diverting some of it's speed (in fact, all of it's speed since nothing is faster than light) towards motion through space. I am moving through spacetime, I am aging, I am seeing light. So light must move through time, even if it does not decay. Otherwise, if light doesn't age, then all points in time are really the same and time does not exist... which is a logical impossiblilty since time obviously exists. So how can we say time does not age?

Similarly, what about photons 'created' after the Big Bang? (I know Matter is neither created nor destroyed but yoy see what I'm getting at.) Are they the same age as the ones 'created' at the Big Bang? They can't be, because they were created at different points in 'time' but time has no meaning for something that does not age...

So, are we saying that since all of light's speed is diverted through moving through space that it does not actually move through time? Because that seems to me as a logical impossiblilty, too. The light changes during the course of a day... and I understand that objects in motion experience time differently, but time is still progressing, just at a difference perceptual rate for different objects. My "clone" moving at twice my speed through spacetime would experience the same lifespan and events as I do, just at what would seem faster to me. And I would seem slower to them. But time is still passing!

And I have to say the definition of the word 'time' as the measure of a certain number of cycles on a clock is utterly idiotic. Yes, I know to truly define time requires a linguistic jump that we can't make and that is the most bare bones definition we can get but come on... the definition defies your own logics. Clocks have ticked and time has passed since the Big Bang yet light has not aged... it's not possible.

I really need to not argue with Einstien.

Anyway, if there are any total math and/or science nerds on my friend's list who can help me understand this, I'd be much obliged. Thanks.