Okay, heard of the double slit experiment ? check it out :
So this brings us back to the fundamental laws of physics ! and in a sense Lostscience may be right to bring this sort of question up…
But comparing blender to our world is a path that will lead you straight down to the twilight zone !
What you see on a computer screen is a mere illusion, nothing more…
Bring it up in the off-topic chat of a gathering of artists and computer geeks? Based on little more than mistaken impressions of popular science articles decades out of date? This is akin to bringing together people to listen to the talking of a raven, and hoping that Edgar Allan Poe is in the audience.
Yes Orinoco, I can agree with you on this one 
; And I get your point…
What I meant is that I can understand what Lost is trying to say ; But yeah ! this can go on for a very, very long time…
As artists, illusion is our business. 
I don’t know how many times I’ve had to remind people that their models need to look right, not be right. Of course, now that 3D printers are starting to turn some of our illusions into reality, the line is getting blurry.
Cheers, Orinoco
It was a pleasure to cross your path see you around some time…
Time dilation exists it has been proven many times.Motion is relevant to inertia because motion causes inertia.
But it’s not something that you can exactly prove in Blender.
Real world motion does not make use of XYZ coordinates like seen in 3D software, and I don’t think the Blender devs. have any sort of Master’s degree in physics to get even close to coding the simulation of such theoretical constructs as a core aspect of the software.
If you want to prove something in physics, don’t use Blender to do it, it only does according to the behavior it is hardcoded to have.
You can also use a obtuse triangle to time travel.Here is a picture how to.
You’re not going to magically go faster if you take the slanted route, it will just take longer to get from it’s point A to it’s point B.
And again, please note that theoretical physics is the last thing that Blender would be designed to do (artists don’t care about that sort of thing). Otherwise you wouldn’t be the only one on this forum trying to use Blender to prove such theories.
Theoretical physicists actually do use simulators to see what effect an experimental set up might have if it were run. MatLab or Mathematica are the software of choice used to build these simulators. But they use simulations mainly because the machinery (linear accelerators, colliders, synchrotrons…) is so large and expensive to operate, that theoretical teams cannot afford to simply rent one and twiddle the knobs and buttons until they get an interesting result.
So they set up a simulator, and twiddle the knobs and buttons on the simulator, until something interesting shows up. But this still does not prove anything. It just gives them a set up to test on the actual collider or accelerator when they get some time to run experiments. It also gives them a simulated result to compare with the actual results.
But any proof is from an actual experiment using real equipment on genuine atomic particles.
We are not talking about me using blender to do it.
A spacecraft in the helios series reached a speed of 150,000 miles per hour so it is achievable to go those speeds.Here is a more clear picture of what i am trying to explain.
Ok, time is relative to the observer,
the faster you go, the greater the effect.
however, you can’t touch those speeds…
we can’t even do it with 1 electron…
a rocket is out of question.
You don’t believe that a spacecraft can go 100,000 miles per hour.Here is a link for you.http://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/what-is-the-fastest-spacecraft-of-all-time/
Lostscience, you are correct that moving at a high speed would result in a time dilation (compared to an observer at rest), but what you don’t seem to understand is that the direction you travel in does not matter. You total speed is what matters (i.e. not the separate velocity components).
You forgot that you skipped some factors in your formula. These factors are very small when your speed is not near speed of light. That is the reason why your triangle only works at low speed.
When you travel with high speed this is no triangle anymore.
…That flippin’ blew my mind. |:|
Some geometric manipulation will show you that the total speed is about 96570 m/s (I use m/s because I’m more comfortable with that, but it’s just a simple conversion)
Time dilation is given by the following expression (check wikipedia or any physics textbook dealing with stuff like this):
[Delta]t’/[Delta]t = [Gamma] = 1/Sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]
Where:
[Delta]t’ is the time experienced by the observer at rest (proper time)
[Delta]t is the time experienced by the moving object or person
v is the speed of the traveler
c is the speed of light in vacuum
Entering some numbers into that equation gives:
[Gamma] = 1.0000000518
This means that when 1 hour has passed for the moving object, 1.0000000581 hours (=1 h and 186.5 µs)has passed for the observer at rest.
They said in yahoo answers that if you were traveling at lightspeed for an hour in your spaceship.That 80 hours would pass by on earth for a
hour that passes in your spaceship.All you would have to do is divede the speed of light by two.Until it equals to the speed you want to figure
out the time dilation for.Then you divide the 80 hour by two by how many times you divided to get to that particular speed.Like this.
lightspeed=669,600,000 miles per hour
669,600,000=1hr for 80hrs
334,800,000=1hr for 40hrs
167,400,000=1hr for 20hrs
83,700,000=1hr for 10 hrs
41,850,000=1hr for 5 hrs
20,925,000=1hr for 2.5 hrs
10,462,500=1hr for 1.25 hrs
5,231,250=1hr for .625 hrs
2,615,625=1hr for .3125 hrs
1,307,812.5 1hr for .15625 hrs
653,906.25 1hr for .078125 hrs
326,953.125 1hr for .0390625 hrs
163,476.5625 1hr for .01953125 hrs
Why would it not be a triangle?
Then I can tell you that yahoo answers is wrong, and your own assumptions are wrong as well.
If you were travelling at the speed of light for even one second, an infinite amount of time would pass for an observer who is not moving.
Secondly, time dilation is not a linear phenomenon, i.e. doubling the speed does not double the time dilation. Using the formula I posted earlier 0.2 c would give [Gamma] = 1.02 where as a speed of 0.1 c would give [Gamma] = 1.005.
Here You can see how time dilation behaves as the speed goes from 0 to c (x-axis in the figure)