Time time dialation theory

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

Jesus wept . . . do you still not understand that the word you want is dilation, and not di"a"lation?

I know Frank Tipler said it about the eponymous machine

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

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.

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

Why?

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.

That's right I don't. A clock seems to run slower the faster it goes

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

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

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