Is This a CIA, Navy Seal Time Traveling Disclosure?

A object going upwards at a high speed and forwards at a low speed cannot have two velocity vectors.
So then those speeds it is going do not produce their own seperate velocity vectors.Even though one is going faster than the other.That sounds contrary to reality.
 
time tunnel said:
A object going upwards at a high speed and forwards at a low speed cannot have two velocity vectors.
So then those speeds it is going do not produce their own seperate velocity vectors.Even though one is going faster than the other.That sounds contrary to reality.
Click to expand...

What Ray is trying to tell you is that you can take a motion (velocity in this case) and arbitrarily parse the motion into 3 components, X, Y, Z. Does that mean the object is moving in three directions simultaneously? No. X, Y and Z are the arbitrary coordinate axis of a 3-D set of coordinates that we lay over the space for descriptive purposes only.

You say the object is going "up" at v1 (Y axis) and "forward" at v2 (X axis). Do you want to get rid of the "up" motion without disturbing the motion of the object? Rotate the set of coordinates so that the X axis is parallel to the direction of the motion and Y vanishes.

You're confusing the components of the vector of the motion with reality. The motion itself is independent of the system of coordinates you arbitrarily choose to use.

You choose the coordinate frame in order to have a base reference with which to unambiguously describe the motion. Another observer might choose another coordinate frame to describe the same motion. If the frames are both in Cartesian coordinates, for example, they can use a transformation...say the cosign of the angle between their axis...and using the transformation completely understand each others math solutions and end up saying, "Why, that spaceship is headed straight toward Venus at speed V" and derive the same velocity (speed and direction) for the object.
 
Just so you understand what I mean by "Another observer might choose another coordinate frame to describe the same motion"; there's no law that says both observers have to lay out their own coordinates so that X, Y and Z are pointing in the same direction as the other's coordinates. One of them might have chosen a line between the Earth and Polaris as the X axis and the other might have chosen a line between the Earth and Sun to lay down the X axis. That's where the transformation comes in - to get a common set of coordinates. Each observer uses the transformation to rotate one set of coordinates so it lines up with the other set. (This is a bit of a simplification but it is the bottom line of what is done. The rest is dot and cross products of vectors and Lie Algebras)
 
You may get frustrated with me.But i still believe that you can have two time dialations on one object.It happens on a wheel as well because you have different speeds.
 
time tunnel said:
You may get frustrated with me.But i still believe that you can have two time dialations on one object.It happens on a wheel as well because you have different speeds.
Click to expand...

The frustration comes from your insistence that your belief is correct, when it is not, and that because you insist your belief is correct it is hampering you from understanding why it is not correct.


Let's get to the bottom of exactly where you are going wrong. Note the words I underlined in your quote above. A time dilation is not "on" (as in "attached to") an object. This is a completely incorrect understanding of what a time dilation is. A time dilation can only exist between two reference frames, or between two objects. Darby was trying to explain to you coordinate reference frames in his post above. But instead of being a good student, and asking questions of Darby or myself about what we are presenting, you insist on focusing on your incorrect idea and trying to convince us you are right and we are wrong.

Let me set up an example that you would likely claim "proves" you are right, but I am going to use it to show that you are wrong because of what I just explained above about time dilations can only exist BETWEEN reference frames.

Let us say that I am in the Milky Way galaxy (where earth is) and you are in the Andromeda galaxy, which is far away from the Milky Way. And let's say our two galaxies are moving directly away from each other. Now let's say we are both watching a 3rd object, say a space ship, that is moving away from both our galaxies at close to the speed of light and at a right angle to the line that connects our galaxies. Got it? It is like an isosceles triangle, where your galaxy and my galaxy are on the base of the triangle, and the spaceship flying away from both of us is at the apex of the triangle.

Now....you would likely say that there are "two time dilations on the spaceship." This is incorrect because the time dilation does not "exist" ON the spaceship. It can only exist BETWEEN reference frames. All three objects (our two galaxies and the space ship) are moving reference frames. There is some amount of time dilation between each pair of reference frames:

Time Dilation 1 is measured between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy.
Time Dilation 2 is measured between the Milky Way and the space ship.
Time Dilation 3 is measured between the Andromeda and the space ship.

Now, it would seem you wish to hold onto your belief that you can have "two time dilations on one object" ostensibly to make some statement about how that object can be "on two different timelines" or something of the sort. This would also be incorrect because, as Einstein showed us, time is relative to any observer. This is why it is important to understand that a time dilation can only exist BETWEEN moving reference frames, and not "ON" some object.

I hope you understand now, but I fear you are going to come back with a statement (rather than a question) about how you still believe you are correct.
RMT
 
time tunnel said:
A object going upwards at a high speed and forwards at a low speed cannot have two velocity vectors.
Click to expand...

Let me make this even simpler:

time tunnel said:
An object cannot have two velocity vectors.
Click to expand...

That is what we (myself, Darby, and all physicists and engineers) are saying. Once you fix a reference point from which you are going to measure velocity, there is ONLY one (total) velocity vector that describes it motion with respect to that reference point. What you continue to describe are merely "pieces of" (components of) that total velocity vector. You decided to arbitrarily make those pieces "up and forwards." You need to understand that this is an arbitrary decomposition of the total velocity vector into a 3-axis reference frame. I do not have to select "upward and forward" to decompose. I could easily select a spherical coordinate system, whose 3-D components are comprised of two angles (e.g. Latitude and Longitude) and one distance (radial distance). But no matter what arbitrary coordinate system I use to decompose the total velocity vector, there is still only ONE resultant velocity vector for the moving object.

So then those speeds it is going do not produce their own seperate velocity vectors.
Click to expand...

Correct. they are NOT separate velocity vectors. They are only two (of three) scalar velocity vector components. Again, I am telling you that you really need an introductory physics class and an introductory class to vector kinematics. You clearly do not understand vector kinematics.

That sounds contrary to reality.
Click to expand...

That is because you do not yet understand physical reality and how it is quantified in the language of mathematics.

Initial Velocity Components

Look at the first vector diagram in this article. This keeps it simple by only decomposing the vector into 2 dimensions, rather than three. But what you need to understand is shown in this diagram:

u3l2d2.gif


What you need to understand is that the lines labeled "Vx" and "Vy" are not individual velocity vectors. Rather, they are merely arbitrary, orthogonal components of the total velocity vector, which is labeled as "v".

RMT
 
Now, it would seem you wish to hold onto your belief that you can have "two time dilations on one object" ostensibly to make some statement about how that object can be "on two different timelines" or something of the sort. This would also be incorrect because, as Einstein showed us, time is relative to any observer. This is why it is important to understand that a time dilation can only exist BETWEEN moving reference frames, and not "ON" some object.

I hope you understand now, but I fear you are going to come back with a statement (rather than a question) about how you still believe you are correct.

But everything is moving in the universe.What you are saying is illogical because you are saying that time dialation can exist without objects.Which cannot be proven.Would something bad happen if there were two time dialations on one object.
 
RainmanTime said:
Let's get to the bottom of exactly where you are going wrong. Note the words I underlined in your quote above. A time dilation is not "on" (as in "attached to") an object. This is a completely incorrect understanding of what a time dilation is. A time dilation can only exist between two reference frames, or between two objects. Darby was trying to explain to you coordinate reference frames in his post above. But instead of being a good student, and asking questions of Darby or myself about what we are presenting, you insist on focusing on your incorrect idea and trying to convince us you are right and we are wrong.

Let me set up an example that you would likely claim "proves" you are right, but I am going to use it to show that you are wrong because of what I just explained above about time dilations can only exist BETWEEN reference frames.

Let us say that I am in the Milky Way galaxy (where earth is) and you are in the Andromeda galaxy, which is far away from the Milky Way. And let's say our two galaxies are moving directly away from each other. Now let's say we are both watching a 3rd object, say a space ship, that is moving away from both our galaxies at close to the speed of light and at a right angle to the line that connects our galaxies. Got it? It is like an isosceles triangle, where your galaxy and my galaxy are on the base of the triangle, and the spaceship flying away from both of us is at the apex of the triangle.

Now....you would likely say that there are "two time dilations on the spaceship." This is incorrect because the time dilation does not "exist" ON the spaceship. It can only exist BETWEEN reference frames. All three objects (our two galaxies and the space ship) are moving reference frames. There is some amount of time dilation between each pair of reference frames:

Time Dilation 1 is measured between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy.
Time Dilation 2 is measured between the Milky Way and the space ship.
Time Dilation 3 is measured between the Andromeda and the space ship.
Click to expand...

That was a clear and concise explanation of the topic at hand, that even my unscientific mind could understand.
 
time tunnel said:
But everything is moving in the universe.What you are saying is illogical because you are saying that time dialation can exist without objects.Which cannot be proven.Would something bad happen if there were two time dialations on one object.
Click to expand...

Just as I predicted. You came back with a statement trying to convince me that your view is correct and mine is incorrect, rather than asking a question about why what I have presented is correct. Do you honestly think you are going to convince a college instructor, who has a BS in aerospace engineering and a MS in systems engineering that you understand kinematics and the math behind it better than he does?

What you are saying is illogical because you are saying that time dialation can exist without objects.Which cannot be proven.
Click to expand...


You are again mistakenly saying that I stated something when I did not. Never did I say "time dilation can exist without objects." You simply inferred that, and incorrectly I might add. Rather, what I said (and what Albert Einstein did prove) is that time dilation is ONLY related to the relative motion (relative velocity) between two reference frames (which can certainly be two objects).

Would something bad happen if there were two time dialations on one object.
Click to expand...

Before you can ask (or answer) that question, one must first establish that two time dilations can exist "on one object." So far, you have not established that by any sense of the scientific method, and I have established to you why it is not true, using science and math.

But I guess you are stubborn and don't want to give up your belief, so you will continue to tell me why I am wrong rather than ask questions to improve your understanding.
RMT
 
Focus on this fact:

A TIME DILATION IS A RELATIVE MEASUREMENT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE MOVING OBJECTS. A TIME DILATION IS NOT AN INHERENT PROPERTY OF ANY SINGLE OBJECT.

RMT
 
Yeah i am going to hold on to my belief.People have been taught wrong things in the past like the world is flat.I believe you are just like them in that regard.
 
time tunnel said:
Yeah i am going to hold on to my belief.People have been taught wrong things in the past like the world is flat.I believe you are just like them in that regard.
Click to expand...


That's pretty mature, considering you cannot show that anything i have presented to you is wrong. I wish you well with your particular form of investigating truth. (That's sarcasm, in case you didn't catch it).

What is really going on here is you just cannot bare to admit you were uninformed. Let me know when you get the Nobel Prize.

RMT
 
If a object is moving at 50,000 mph you could make a object move on that object at 50,000 mph by magnetic fields.This has to do with time dialation as well.When i used a relativity calculator i could gain a second in 3 years going 100,000 miles per hour and going half that speed in three years you would gain a half a second.Two objects going 50,000 mph on top of each other equal to 100,000 mph.The one on bottom would gain a half of second and the one on top would gain a second.This is a another time machine idea i had.
 
If a object is moving at 50,000 mph
Click to expand...

If an object is moving at 50,000 mph with respect to what? That's the first question you have to ask because this is relativity. I'm sitting here on Earth and see an object whip bye our planet and I calculate its velocity as 50,000 mph. Someone on the Moon looks at the same object and will calculate an entirely different velocity.

You need to do some study on Special Relativity. Our "common sense" ideas about time, space and mass are firmly rooted in Newtonian Relativity because that's generally the reality that we experience low energy fields and low velocities (WRT the speed of light). Addition of velocities in Special Relativity when calculating time dilation is not 1 + 1 = 2. At low velocities like 50,000 mph it is almost 1 + 1 = 2 but not quite. (In fact you can't actually use arithmetic. It requires differential calculus. General Relativity, at its most basic form, requires analytic geometry. Differential calculus doesn't even work there.
 
Are you saying the relativity calculators are wrong?I would rather someone tell me then.Than go through all that work.Could you tell me the time dialation of a object that is going 50,000 miles per hour.And also the time dialation of a object going 100,000 miles per hour away from a person on the ground.The same would apply to my time machine idea.
 
time tunnel said:
Yeah i am going to hold on to my belief.People have been taught wrong things in the past like the world is flat.I believe you are just like them in that regard.
Click to expand...

I hate to tell you this, but in this case you're the Flat Earther.

Now, you can hang on to your beliefs, a blade of grass or anything else that you want to hang on to. Hanging on to it won't alter reality, however. As I said above, you need to do some studying if you really want to discover the facts. It's best not to hang on to a belief when the belief is based on ignorance.

Try this little book. It has very little math and was written by Einstein for the general public: Relativity: The Special and General Theory. It's only about a 130 pages long. You can get it at Amazon (including the Kindle version) or any book store. In fact you can get it here as a PDF (free) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf

Read it. It might not change your mind but at least you'll come away with an understanding of what real relativity is rather than what Internet Fruitbat "researchers" on alt-sci forums say it is (or isn't).
 
Back
Top