You cannot divide infinity you will just get another infinity.How much of a fraction of infinity is 200 miles per hour in time dilation.So an infinite amount of time cannot possible pass.I believe you are not understanding the theory of relativity correctly.
You can actually divide by infinity, and the answer is then zero. This is however usually done by using limits instead of directly dividing by infinity.
So strictly speaking when the speed approaches the speed of light, the time dilation approaches infinity. Of course actually reaching the speed of light is not possible according to the theory of relativity.
If it were zero then time dilation would not be able to exist.And it has been proven many times before.
Yes, as I said before, time dilation exists, and it is not a linear phenomenon as you suggested a couple of posts ago. Nowhere have I said that you would have to divide by infinity though. Calculating the time dilation of an object moving at the speed of light (a situation that you yourself brought up) would require dividing by zero (depending on who you ask, this is not something you can do normally, but you can solve the situation using limits as I mentioned earlier). What happens when traveling at the speed of light is, however, not relevant as the theory of relativity breaks down in that case and is no longer applicable.
For speeds lower than the speed of light the dilation is given by the equation I posted earlier. If you don’t believe me, good. It shows critical thinking. To get an answer take a class in theoretical physics dealing with relativity or read a book and work through the derivation of the equations yourself.
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.
There must be plenty of other people that would disagree with you on that.Although they had not said anything.They probably exist.
I’m sure there are, but then again there are probably also people who have actually studied physics that would agree with me. The factor Gamma (also known as the Lorentz factor) in the equation I posted earlier shows up pretty much everywhere when you are dealing with relativity (e.g. relativistic mass, relativistic momentum, length contraction etc.)
The Lorentz factor has also been correlated to experimental data on several occasions, for example relativistic Doppler effect (technically the Doppler effect is always relativistic, but when considering for example the speed of sound in air, the difference between relativistic and classical Doppler effect becomes negligible).
Are there any other things that are not linear phenomenon?Give me another if there is.
Lets find out how many there are.That should be of a interest to you and everybody else.If it is indeed true.
There are plenty of examples. In fact most systems are not linear in every aspect.
Simply put, non-linearity means that the output is not directly proportional to the input.
For example kinetic energy is not directly proportional to the velocity, but rather to the square of the velocity (E = 1/2 * mv^2) and thus doubling the velocity will quadruple the kinetic energy, which is why for example doubling the speed of a car will quadruple the distance required to bring the car to a stop (this is of course an approximation, as there are other things than the kinetic energy that affect the distance required)
even simply dropping an object is not a linear phenomenon. How fast the object falls will depend on the mass, surface area and shape of the object as well as the medium you drop it through.
I mean the same non linear phenomenon you get with time dilation for other things in the universe.
If you mean the Lorentz factor, I already posted a couple of examples. Relativistic mass, momentum, kinetic energy etc. all depend on the Lorentz factor.
Are they nonlinear in the same percentages?
There you can see how the different relativistic quantities depend on the Lorentz factor
Inertia is linear because the faster you go the more inertia there is.
I think you are confusing inertia with momentum (although sometimes inertia refers to momentum). Inertia is more like a fundamental property of mass.
And the reason why momentum is linear is that it is directly proportional to both mass and velocity i.e. doubling the mass or velocity will double the momentum, not simply because higher velocity leads to higher momentum (higher velocity also means more kinetiv energy, but as I already said, kinetic energy is not linear in relation to velocity)
It is simple but it requires a lot of time and effort.
You just go build a looping train track around the world. From north pole to south pole. Then build a very fast train, 5 times faster than the speed of sound.
Time slows down while you are on this train. You travel the world in a loop, fromfrom north pole to south pole.
Is your idea about time dilation?I believe you need a little more speed than that if you are you are going exploit the effect of time dilation.
Time travel already exists and I use it frequently. It is rectangular and padded and when I lie upon it and cover myself up, I generally lose , then regain consciousness 5 to 8 hours later.
Does the title imply that we’re talking about your thoughts on time travel specifically or anyones thoughts?
We’re probably already time taveling, just always in the same direction. You might assume that direction to be forward and maybe it is, but some scientific theories suggest we’ve been traveling backwards in time. I assume that means the opposite of the generally subscribed to direction, forward, because if we were traveling backward we’d probably just call it forward because that would be the direction we’re facing.
I mean the terms forward and backward are relativistic so when someone say backwards in time they mean the reverse of whatever direction they think we’re currently going, which is technically unknown and only usually assumed.
At first i meant my ideas but i would like for anybody to post their ideas for time travel.
I think he is confusing ‘linear’ with ‘proportional’. Or, more probably, conflating the definition of ‘directly proportional’ with ‘proportional’ in general. I suspect lostscience’s confusion on physical realities are due to a tenuous grasp on their mathematical descriptions.