Is This a CIA, Navy Seal Time Traveling Disclosure?

[RainmanTime]

So then www.timedilationcalculator.net is not right.

Well, this sounds like an attempt to change the subject, or divert attention. What on earth do you think this calculator has to do with your claims about "time dilation on an object?" In point of fact, this site is yet another confirmation of what I have told you: that time dilation is between two reference frames moving with respect to one another. Not attached to an object.

Care to explain?
RMT

 

[time tunnel]

This is about my 133 post .One of my ideas on how to time travel?

 

[RainmanTime]

This is about my 133 post .One of my ideas on how to time travel?

You have a very odd way of thinking about things....or should I say not thinking very deeply about things. From your post #133:

Two objects going 50,000 mph on top of each other equal to 100,000 mph.

If object B is "on top" of object A, then that means the two objects are not connected to each other (they are two separate bodies). Would you like to tell me what the VELOCITY VECTOR is for each object? (i.e. not just its magnitude of speed, which you gave, but its direction as well).

But even beyond that, if Object B is traveling at 50,000 mph with respect to Object A (no matter how fast it is traveling), those two objects will not be "on" one another very long at all, will they? Unless these objects are hugely massive (much much greater than 50,000 miles long)

Your description leaves a lot to be desired. Although I am sure you think it is clear, we engineers would need a free body diagram with the velocity vectors properly drawn before we understood what you were talking about.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Let me make it very clear what I am getting at here:

If object B is "on top" of object A, then that means the two objects are not connected to each other (they are two separate bodies). Would you like to tell me what the VELOCITY VECTOR is for each object? (i.e. not just its magnitude of speed, which you gave, but its direction as well).

If both velocities of A and B are measured with respect to some reference point (say on earth) then what you are claiming can only be true (100,000 mph) if those two objects are moving away from each other. And even then, this is only the velocity of A with respect to B, or velocity of B with respect to A. The velocity of B would NOT be 100,000 mph if you are measuring its 50,000 mph velocity with respect to earth.

This type of confusion that comes from words-only is exactly why engineers draw free body diagrams and label the velocity vectors with their magnitude and direction.

RMT

 

[time tunnel]

If the objects are resting on each other and object a is resting on the earth.Object b would not be 100,000 miles per hour.But would it appear to be?

 

[RainmanTime]

If the objects are resting on each other and object a is resting on the earth.Object b would not be 100,000 miles per hour.But would it appear to be?

If object b sits atop object a and object a sits on the earth, and object a immediately accelerates to 50,000 mph with respect to earth, and at the same time object b immediately accelerates to 50,000 mph with respect to earth in the opposite (180 degree) direction from object a, then here are the velocities:

Object a velocity with respect to earth = 50,000 mph
Object b velocity with respect to earth = 50,000 mph
Object a velocity with respect to object b = 100,000 mph

OK so there are your answers. So now tell me what you are saying now that you know this.
RMT

 

[time tunnel]

Does object b have a greater time dialation than object a.In respect to someone standing on the earth.

 

[Darby]

So then www.timedilationcalculator.net is not right.

Does object b have a greater time dialation than object a.In respect to someone standing on the earth.

It's correct in that it will output a proper SR solution. But - the site assumes that the person doing the input has at least a basic understanding of the meaning of frames of reference and Special Relativity. You're ignoring the most important word in Special (or General, Newtonian, Galilean...) Relativity. You need to ask yourself what the word "relativity" means in this scenario and then go out and find the answer.

I could point out the precise place where you're making the logical error in your disk scenario and give you the solution. But I'm not going to do it. You have a problem that you want to solve. If I solve it for you then I have a problem that I didn't have before. I know the correct answer thus I have no need of the problem. I'll just give you a hint: the problem is completely solved if you just read the book I suggested. You won't even have to fill in the blanks - it is specifically explained for you.

 

[time tunnel]

A frame of reference is the point from which the person is looking at the object.But that is like saying you need to know how a calculator works in order to use it.

 

[RainmanTime]

Does object b have a greater time dialation than object a.In respect to someone standing on the earth.

The time dilation of object a with respect to earth is the same as the time dilation of object b with respect to earth. This is because they are both moving at the same velocity with respect to earth.
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

A frame of reference is the point from which the person is looking at the object.But that is like saying you need to know how a calculator works in order to use it.

Actually, no it is nothing like saying that. It is a known fact that a person who does not know how to account for frames of reference, and transform from one frame of reference to another, will most certainly get incorrect answers when solving dynamics problems. In fact, this lack of knowledge is responsible for a LOT of students washing out of engineering. And I think I ought to know, since I wash a lot of them out of the curriculum.

RMT

 

[Darby]

A frame of reference is the point from which the person is looking at the object.But that is like saying you need to know how a calculator works in order to use it.

Read some damned physics. Your answer was incomplete. The name of the theory is Special Relativity. A precise definition of "frame of reference" is necessary. It is not a tautology as you suggest. The title of the theory is tossing you broad hints - in fact it's slapping you upside the head with them - as to why frames of reference are vitally important to the theory.

(Frankly, Ray, I'm beginning to get that "it's a troll" feeling here. He's quibbling just to hear himself quibble. He has no intention of educating himself. And I suspect that he has never taken even an introductory high school level physical science course.)

 

[RainmanTime]

Frankly, Ray, I'm beginning to get that "it's a troll" feeling here. He's quibbling just to hear himself quibble.

I agree. He is a bit like our own, beloved forum Einstein. Although I must say, when Einstein quibbled just to hear himself type, he was at least a lot more entertaining than this one.

RMT

 

[time tunnel]

I have another idea for a time machine.I am going to use the blender program to do it.I won't talk to you about it because you have shot down all my ideas way too often.I know you think that blender cannot do real physics.But all i need is motion to make a time machine.I know you don't believe it though.But so what i am going to do it anyway.

 

[Darby]

I have another idea for a time machine.I am going to use the blender program to do it.I won't talk to you about it because you have shot down all my ideas way too often.I know you think that blender cannot do real physics.But all i need is motion to make a time machine.I know you don't believe it though.But so what i am going to do it anyway.

Bass-O-Matic blender?

 

[time tunnel]

No it's software to model 3dmodels and animate with and has a game engine.

 

[Darby]

SEALs are very unique people. With the right training they are capable of bilocation, remote viewing, telepathy, and other talents that I don't have the formal names for.

Credible references(s) or other valid proof of the above quoted material, please. (No - not the part about SEALs being very unique people. We accept that part without further proof.)

BTW: The SEAL arrested in NY was Shaun, not Sean, Day. I am only assuming that he knows how to spell his own first name.

 

[AuditorMaterial]

Interference with the future is not the point about the free will argument, however. If someone is able to look ahead in the road of time - not guess but literally look, whether from the ground or atop a telephone pole - that would mean that the viewed future actually already exists, including me with the red shirt. If you're saying, well, what's to stop me from wearing a blue shirt, so the guy on the telephone pole suddenly sees my red shirt turning to blue, well ... if you take that to its logical conclusion, the man on the telephone pole could in principle see all possible colors of shirts, which would make his viewpoint on the pole no different from the man on the ground, or from someone not looking that way at all.

Great ideas, but I have to say that displeasure with one's own reality (or one's place and speed in time) doesn't make it any less real.