9

# Time time dialation theory

All time

0
Mon 31 Mar, 2014 10:07 pm
@Brandon9000,
It was on one of the science shows on the science channel.
Setanta

2
Tue 1 Apr, 2014 02:43 am
Jesus wept . . . do you still not understand that the word you want is dilation, and not di"a"lation?
0 Replies

contrex

1
Tue 1 Apr, 2014 09:50 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

All time wrote:
" you cannot go back in time before the time machine was made."

Which scientist said that?

I know Frank Tipler said it about the eponymous machine
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Tue 1 Apr, 2014 12:19 pm
@All time,
Quote:
If you place objects traveling at the same speed on top of one another.You get greater and greater time dialation with increasing speedâ€¦...This increase in speed can be caused by stacking objects moving at a paticular speed on each other.
All, if you mean that its time runs slower if it gets heavier, I can't agree. Relative velocity slows its apparent time and at the same time makes it heavier (increases its apparent mass) but the one effect doesn't cause the other

I can't understand the rest of your reasoning but the idea of time reversal suggests it's wrong. Unless things have changed recently, you should easily be able to travel forward but not back

Try restating your position, or get one of these other fellas to clarify it
All time

0
Tue 1 Apr, 2014 04:08 pm
@dalehileman,
So you do not believe that time dialation does not increase with increasing speed.That is what the websight said.And that is what i was saying.My device increases speed by objects placed on top of each other that are moving upwards on top of each other.
So the bottom would be slower than the top object.Then time dialation would be less on the bottom and more on the top.Did you even look at the websight i showed you.
Brandon9000

1
Tue 1 Apr, 2014 04:39 pm
@All time,
All time wrote:

It was on one of the science shows on the science channel.

Maybe with some particular design, but it's hardly a general principle. By the way, the spelling is "Web site."
0 Replies

contrex

1
Wed 2 Apr, 2014 12:56 am
@All time,
All time wrote:
objects placed on top of each other that are moving upwards on top of each other.
So the bottom would be slower than the top object.

Why?

All time

0
Wed 2 Apr, 2014 02:35 am
@contrex,
Because the object on the bottom moves slower than the object on the top.Read post 5,623,890 and you will see what i am getting at.
0 Replies

dalehileman

1
Wed 2 Apr, 2014 12:15 pm
@All time,
Quote:
So you do not believe that time dialation does not increase with increasing speed.
That's right I don't. A clock seems to run slower the faster it goes

Quote:
That is what the websight said
The first such link was apparently deleted by the Moderator but I found a link to a routine that seems to confirm the observation, and I have no quarrel with it

Quote:
My device increases speed by objects placed on top of each other that are moving upwards on top of each other.
This is a bit confusing. I presume you mean, for instance, the bottom object is still, your machine causing a second object to rise from it, with a third rising from the second, etc, so that each succeeding object is rising at an increasing speed relative to us, the observer and our device

..in which case of course the clock carried away with each succeeding object appears to be running even slower. So far so good, hardly anybody will disagree

Quote:
Then time dialation would be less on the bottom and more on the top.
Yes it would still appear we're in agreement. The bottom clock is reading the same as ours with each succeeding clock moving up with a reading lower than the one below it. So All, you'll have to forgive my perplexity since I don't exactly comprehend what else your gadget is supposed to do in relation to"time travel," especially backward

Rereading your OP, All, I'm wondering if we're not situated on the "bottom" object but instead somewhere in the middle, and you're asking whether clocks below us would appear to be running backward; in which case, no they wouldn't, they also would appear to be running forward (tho slower of course) just as the ones above

Unless you mean that in addition to their relative motion up and down the entire occurrence is also moving away in tandem, introducing further relativistic considerations I cannot at the moment entertain

But might someone else who better follows All's reasoning intervene with clarification
0 Replies

### Related Topics

Physics of the Biblical Flood - Discussion by gungasnake
Suggest forum, physics - Question by dalehileman
The nature of space and time - Question by shanemcd3
I don't understand how this car works. - Discussion by DrewDad
An Embarassment to Science - Discussion by Leadfoot
Gravitational waves Discovered ! - Discussion by Fil Albuquerque
BICEP and now LIGO discover gravity waves - Discussion by farmerman
Transient fields - Question by puzzledperson