Thoughts on how to time travel

Time dilation by moving a object up faster than it moves to the side.This would cause two time dilations on one object.This means that it would occupy two times at ounce.So all you would have to do is make the object go those two speeds for a greater amount of time for greater effect.You could use many objects to connect many times to one another

Isn’t this the same as moving at an angle other than 45° in relation to some other direction? In other words, splitting a direction into two perpendicular components does not really change anything

Exactly my thinking. You’re moving at one certain speed along a vector generated by the directional components.

And btw (1): It’s dilatation, not dialatation.
And btw (2): Why stop at two dilatations? In a three dimensional space you would - by your logic - end up in three dilatations, no?
And btw (3): How would the dilatation delta lead to time travel in the first place?

Blender may have local and world coordinates, for the convenience of artists and modelers, but the universe does not. You are taking an artifact of the human imagination (coordinate systems) and applying it to the universe. Doesn’t work.

The theory of relativity says that if you went the speed of light that more would pass by for somebody on earth as opposed to you.I believe the same thing would happen for all speeds but the effects would be smaller for lower speeds and greater for higher speeds.I did not say anything about doing this in blender
this time.

This is true, but why would traveling at an angle make a difference?

I think what Orinoco means is that in for example blender (or everyday life) we fix our frame of reference to something convenient, such as north/south and give a direction in relation to that. You can, however, rotate your frame of reference as you wish, so in your original example you could rotate the frame so that you eliminate one direction, and thus only move forward.

Really I did an experiment in blender making a object go up and to the side and it went faster than the two speeds in a slant.But the object can be experienced as going two speeds or one.It depends on how you look at it literally.Although you may not believe blender.

Yes, if you move along the x-axis at let’s say 3 m/s and at the same time along the Y-axis at 4 m/s the pythagorean theorem will tell you that the total speed will be 5 m/s. This is, however, in no way different from moving at 5 m/s along just the x-axis, except of course the direction of movement (and even this could be solved by simply rotating your frame of reference by ArcTan[4/3] = ~53.13° and then you could treat the rest of your calculations as something moving straight along one axis)

Time is relative to velocity.

The only way to time travel would be to find a way to go past C to go back in time, and @ C away and back to go forward in time.

out 100 light years, and back 100 light year with time stopped for the observer = 200 year time travel to the future,

however there is no way to go C so instead I will drink coffee and eat pop tarts.

I am left puzzled as to how he got to the conclusion that Blender can be seen as a perfect simulation of theoretical physics, it’s a 3D digital content creation software for the purpose of 3D art and animation, most artists don’t really care about that sort of thing.

I’m afraid this will end up like his last thread, that is him dismissing every reply that’s not “singing to the choir” (or fully agreeing with his ideas) resulting in an unproductive thread.

Morio gets it.

As far as motion is concerned, there is only motion and not-motion.

Angles, ups, downs, forwards, backwards, norths, souths, lefts, rights, Xs, Ys, or any other way we refer to motion is only relative to some frame of reference we human beings have established in order to think about or describe that motion.

We can use cartesian coordinates for calculations, but as far as the object that is moving is concerned, its motion is a simple vector: it has a single direction and a single magnitude. Even an object subjected to multiple forces which make it travel along a curved path or to accelerate, at any particular instant in time those forces resolve into a single unique force which leaves the object traveling in a single direction at some specific velocity at that time.

Lostscience says, in effect, that by changing the way we think about some object’s motion, we can cause it to “occupy two times at ounce.” This is not science nor mathematics, it is magic. Or nonsense, whichever you prefer.

Existence, if there is such a thing, is utter nonsense.

If i had a object that was moving up 20 miles per hour and to the side 1 miles per hour.And you were on it and there was a spike sticking out about a mile a way from you in the up position.So that it would collide into you after an hour.You could reverse it to and place the spike in the side position.It would be relevant then.Just like weight is relevant to gravity.

Now I’m not sure if you are trolling or not, but please draw a picture of that, as I still have no idea how it would be different from just moving in a straight line in any other direction.

So in one case you have something, this “spike”, in a position to be an obstacle to your movement, and then you change the position of this thing so it is not an obstacle to your movement. You’re saying the orientation of this thing might or might not put you on a collision course with it? So what? The location or orientation of something that might be an obstacle has not a thing, not a god. damn. thing. to do with the motion of the object.

If i had a object that was moving up 20 miles per hour and to the side 10 miles per hour.And you were on it and there was a spike sticking out about a mile a way from you in the up position.So that it would collide into you after an hour.
It would be relevant then.Just like inertia is relevant to motion.Here is a picture.The read cube represent you.



Blender and any typical 3D representation I know do not consider speed at all. They deal with static positions.

Speed as an attribute of motion is usually dealt by a Physics engine. I do not know much physics engines. I would be surprised if any physics engine (supposed to serve a game) would do calculation with high speed (speed near the speed of light) in any way. So they all assume the speed is far away from speed of light and therefore calculate with the very simplified model we all are used to. We might sit on a fast travelling and fast rotation rock but our experiences with velocities are pretty limited to the corner of the next table (and we hope not to hit it with the leg).

Therefore this model will not be sufficient for any calculation near the speed of light. So it will not give you the right answer if you ask: “If I’m travelling with my car at speed of light and switch on the car head lights - how fast is that light?”

You would need to deal with large numbers. So you will get problems with the precision of the numbers even without dealing with the real physics. Assuming you have a million monkeys with type writers and a million years time … one or more might write down the right physics model. My monkey note says: “This is the off-topic sub.forum harharhar

Btw. I wonder what a creature is constantly living at nearly speed of light is thinking about us “slow walkers” :P.

Yes, if you move towards a spike you will eventually hit it. What does this have to do with two different time dilations? In your picture you basically have a box moving towards a spike at 22.36 mph (or Sqrt[500] mph to be exact). You could simply recalculate the position of the spike and the direction of the movement to a coordinate system where everything happens along the x-axis

If you think that putting a ‘spike’ in the path of a moving object is somehow ‘relevant’ to time travel, the motion of the object before it hits the spike, the coordinate system you use to describe the motion, or any other thing except that the object will eventually collide with the spike, then you are not using the word ‘relevant’ in a manner other people would recognize.

“Just like inertia is relevant to motion” ??? Please. Your posts are gibberish verging on word salad. I should think you’d be embarrassed to expose such fuzzy magical thinking to the public, but that’s apparently not the case.

I’m starting to wonder if Lostscience is autistic by any chance?

This type of thinking and obsession is not too unlike that of people with the condition (even among adults), but I’m not a physician so I can’t make that call.