More questions on Aircraft.

Does reletivity expand beyond the time, speed, acceleration, mass, and length stuff?

... I'm just going to pass on this one because none of that made any sense to me whatsoever.  I'd ask for a simplistic version of what you mean, but as far as I can tell, it only implies that UA is physically possible, not necessarily factual.  So, due to your sheer ability to confuse me beyond all reasonable rebuttle, I'm just going to see if I can get my head to stop spinning.  If you show me how any of this shows that the Earth IS flat and not simply that UA is possible, I might focus on trying to make sense of this stuff.

Does reletivity expand beyond the time, speed, acceleration, mass, and length stuff?

Energy.

Just about everything else is derived from these.

I did try your formula, TheEngineer. Once I had done it for an infinite amount of time, I arrived at the speed of light quite comfortably!

... I'm just going to pass on this one because none of that made any sense to me whatsoever.  I'd ask for a simplistic version of what you mean, but as far as I can tell, it only implies that UA is physically possible, not necessarily factual.  So, due to your sheer ability to confuse me beyond all reasonable rebuttle, I'm just going to see if I can get my head to stop spinning.  If you show me how any of this shows that the Earth IS flat and not simply that UA is possible, I might focus on trying to make sense of this stuff.

Ask for it in pictures. I'm asking for all my explanations to be in pictures. Just waiting for Engy Baby to stop being a lazy bastard and get round to it.

... I'm just going to pass on this one because none of that made any sense to me whatsoever.  I'd ask for a simplistic version of what you mean, but as far as I can tell, it only implies that UA is physically possible, not necessarily factual.  So, due to your sheer ability to confuse me beyond all reasonable rebuttle, I'm just going to see if I can get my head to stop spinning.  If you show me how any of this shows that the Earth IS flat and not simply that UA is possible, I might focus on trying to make sense of this stuff.

Then I find your sig very inappropriate.

I did try your formula, TheEngineer. Once I had done it for an infinite amount of time, I arrived at the speed of light quite comfortably!

Then it must have taken an infinite number of iterations.  You really are fast with a calculator.

They call me Speedy-Fingers.

An infinite number of iterations was nothing, given the infinite time I took to do them. After I did them, I spent another long (non-infinite) amount of time inventing a time machine to come back and tell you guys.

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on May 09, 2007, 03:04:39 PM

Does reletivity expand beyond the time, speed, acceleration, mass, and length stuff?

Energy.

Just about everything else is derived from these.

What do you mean by everything?

Quote from: Mongrelman... Or so I'm told... on May 09, 2007, 03:05:49 PM

... I'm just going to pass on this one because none of that made any sense to me whatsoever.  I'd ask for a simplistic version of what you mean, but as far as I can tell, it only implies that UA is physically possible, not necessarily factual.  So, due to your sheer ability to confuse me beyond all reasonable rebuttle, I'm just going to see if I can get my head to stop spinning.  If you show me how any of this shows that the Earth IS flat and not simply that UA is possible, I might focus on trying to make sense of this stuff.

Then I find your sig very inappropriate.

INDIRECT BURN!

Quote from: Mongrelman... Or so I'm told... on May 09, 2007, 03:05:49 PM

... I'm just going to pass on this one because none of that made any sense to me whatsoever.  I'd ask for a simplistic version of what you mean, but as far as I can tell, it only implies that UA is physically possible, not necessarily factual.  So, due to your sheer ability to confuse me beyond all reasonable rebuttle, I'm just going to see if I can get my head to stop spinning.  If you show me how any of this shows that the Earth IS flat and not simply that UA is possible, I might focus on trying to make sense of this stuff.

Then I find your sig very inappropriate.

I beg to differ for two reasons.

1. It does not say "I think, therefore TheEngineer and I have nothing in common."  I'm not saying that anyone here specifically does not think, I am just putting a favorite quote of mine into my signature.

2. I did think.  I genuinely tried to figure out what you were talking about, but I got very very lost.  My inability to make sense of something I simply do not understand does not mean I am an unintelligent fool who chooses to dogmatically believe things rather than think.  It just means I try not to argue about things that I have no grasp on.  If I told you my brother was an imbecile, would you try to prove me wrong, or would you simply move on because it isn't really important and you don't have any way of knowing if I'm wrong?  I was trying to move on for complete lack of knowledge about what you were talking about.  But if you insist, I'll work with your formula a bit, and see where I get.

Well said Mongrelman! Go easy on him Engy Baby, he's only 12

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 09, 2007, 03:05:54 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on May 09, 2007, 03:04:39 PM

Does reletivity expand beyond the time, speed, acceleration, mass, and length stuff?

Energy.

Just about everything else is derived from these.

What do you mean by everything?

I mean that the other parts of relativity are derived from those basic units, such as momentum.

If I told you my brother was an imbecile, would you try to prove me wrong, or would you simply move on because it isn't really important and you don't have any way of knowing if I'm wrong?

This reminds me of a certain forum I know of...

And TheEngineer (was tempted to use that other name), you should explain that time slowing when you approach c stuff and how time can always get slower so you never reach c.  That's the thing that allowed me to understand.  That is in blan terms correct right?

Time slows when you approach c?

In incorrect terms, I'm pretty sure it does.

It does. When you approach d time stops altogether.

What TheEng said: your velocity is a four-dimensional vector of magnitude c, so any increase in your x, y or z velocity results in a decreasing time-velocity.

But why does time slow down?

But why does time slow down?

Quoted because I'm just as confused as she appears to be.

Because the speed of light is a constant, so that means things other than it have to change for things to work.

Again, why? Maybe I'm just denser than usual tonight but I'm not getting it

Again, why? Maybe I'm just denser than usual tonight but I'm not getting it

I'll draw you a picture in a minute...

I'm so glad he's responded...

Time doesn't slow down as such, more that time is a dimension we are moving through, and when you move fast in other dimensions of space, you move through time slower. So when you drive a fast car, you're not really going faster, you're transferring some of your time-speed into road-speed, meaning you go slower through time.

Quote from: GeneralGayhand on May 09, 2007, 03:30:49 PM

Again, why? Maybe I'm just denser than usual tonight but I'm not getting it

I'll draw you a picture in a minute...

Well hurry up, can't stay up all night

And that doesn't make sense to me Gin

Marvellous.

Can I just pretend that helps and lets just all assume I understand now?

:O  I think I get it!  I am genuinely trying to understand the concept, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Is this theory comparable to X/50 = 100/Y?  Bear with me. 

  X       100
____ = _____
50          Y

Mathematically, 5,000 = XY.  So if X were 100, Y would be 50, because 5,000/100 = 50

100       100
____ = _____
50          50 

Now if X went down to 25, Y would have to be 200.

 25       100
____ = _____
50        200

And because there are four dimensions, the formula applies to spacetime.  The Constants of spacial mass and the speed of light will never change, so the only things that change are velocity and time.  They are inversely proportionate as X and Y are, so when one goes up, the other must go down.

Am I close?  If I'm not, please notice that I'm making a sincere effort here.

NOTE:  I got all this from Mr. Ireland's statement, not Engineer's picture.

You got the right idea.

Your concept is correct.  And TheEngineer, I have that exact diagram (but drawn up a bit) in my physics textbook.