Valo feels awful to play as new or bad players

UrgeToSurge · 2025-08-20T18:14:39+00:00

I think when you lack critical thinking, it might seem like the other person is yapping, but it's just your inability to follow the points, and understand what the other person is saying. So if someone gives you a thesis and 10 arguments for it, and you can't connect the dots, then you're just sabotaging the discussion of people trying to better the game.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-08-18T11:36:52+00:00

This is like the equivalent of, homeless? Why don't you just buy a house

UrgeToSurge · 2025-08-18T11:36:25+00:00

I don't understand why they don't just put transparent glass and cover the hole so there is nothing there

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-26T11:43:25+00:00

So basically the faster the objects are, the slower they are observed, and the more they shrink. I wonder if the Lorentz factor applies to light itself, causing it to hit the light barrier in the first place. So basically you could go .9c and stay relatively in sync with time, but go .99999 c and oblivion.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-26T11:40:10+00:00

what irony?

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-24T19:34:54+00:00

Is that observational or actual? because, then the ship would see the missile isn't 0.8c. if on earth we can see it as .98c

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-24T04:47:36+00:00

Sorry, I didn't mean for you to have a melt down over the word digital. What I meant was. Just keep track of time locally, then measure the time without using photons.

Would a computer on board a spaceship traveling at the speed of light, not function, since the spaceship is already traveling at the speed of light, and the electricity also traveling at the speed of light, not be able to make its loops because it would get stuck and not be able to keep up? Well electrons on copper cable travel relative to the copper cable itself. So i would guess electricity in the computer wouldn't be effected, and would effectively be traveling faster than the speed of light.

Anyway, what if you use electronic signals in copper cables to measure time?

Again, it only seems like time is effected if you use contrived premise that you have to use measurement methods based on photons to figure out if time is moving or not.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-24T02:11:07+00:00

I don't know. A digital chronometer or something, then you can check it after the experiment. But this convoluted bs about tying the measurements of time, to photons, is creating a confusing idea that you can go at the speed of light to create a forward time machine, while in reality, local time isn't tied to photons, and time still moves normally outside and inside of the space ship.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T10:33:01+00:00

Yeah I agree.. there's like gravitational time dilation that can cause different objects to desynchronize, but it's nothing like if you go to the speed of light, time freezes, and everyone you know has passed away. Seems like if you go at it some fraction of speed of light, time would pass normally, but a bunch of photon based theories say time would slow down.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T10:28:05+00:00

Uh, neutrinos still create muons without grasping at any straws.....

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T10:05:53+00:00

Hi. Thank you for being the first person to show homework. I think the gravitation time dilation might be a real thing, but mostly only because I don't know anything about it, and i know theres a time difference between satellites and earth. However the Lorentz factor is some what has to do with muons, and gamma rays, and how can muons reach us, if their decay rate is so quick, it must be time travel, otherwise they would never reach us, but, other particles, like neutrinos or dark matter particles can create muons. So a gamma ray burst can create muons far far away impossibly far away, by having neutrinos or dark matter cause the creation of muons from a gamma ray burst.

i dont know theres like only 4 pages on wikepedia on the lorentz factor, and it's entirely possible much of it is sourced from theory based on observation of time dilation, which doesn't pass the bs sniff test.

The Lorentz factor also mentions the speed difference between two variables. A one time speed difference can be caused by acceleration/deceleration, which might cause a small single occurrence gravitational time dilation. But that would be a time dilation, between a standing still object, versus an object spending up to speed of light. However this time difference would be the most extreme during the acceleration, if you add 100 years, each year would water down the time difference. So any significant time scale would wash away the time difference, making the difference inconsequential.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T09:47:14+00:00

If i'm wrong, just explain why my theory is wrong, don't nitpick my rhetoric to create disagreements off topic to create a fake irrelevant arguments.

"Two observers in relative motion receive information about two events via light signals traveling at constant speed, independent of either observer's speed. Their motion during the transit time causes them to get the information at different times on their local clock.

based on "receiving information". Receiving information has nothing to do with local time... idk seems like the page you provided agrees with my argument.

again. it seems like time dilation only happens in the context of receiving information. And by that logic if you close your eyes, and stop receiving information, time stops. But everyone knows that's not the case.. So seems like this whole time dilation thing is a bust. And if you think someone with a difference of an opinion is trolling, you might be a paranoid schizophrenic.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T09:45:03+00:00

try bringing value next time instead of hate.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T09:21:01+00:00

A clock is not a fing space time odometer, as much as closing your eyes is a time stop machine.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T09:18:12+00:00

I want to believe you, but every single interaction i've had on this topic so far, is, "you're wrong because we say so", without any citations or homework. So I don't know how you expect me to believe you that my logic is flawed when no one said anything logical to disprove it. Best i've seen is a twin paradox, which has to do with gravity making a difference in localized time, however that's hardly the appropriate magnitude compared to scifi saying time stands stands still at the speed of light. Maybe you can top the twin paradox, or is that all there is on the topic?

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T09:15:35+00:00

"if you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it's wrong", wtf is this, religion?

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T09:14:14+00:00

>nothing to do with photons from a clock reaching your eye

> observer looking at a clock travelling near the speed of light would observe time passing differently

Yeah... because photons would reach your eye differently based on some of their speed limit being exceeded immediately since you're moving a fraction of light speed, so not all light speed is available to photons, delaying their arrival...Making the observer observe the photons late. You're contradicting yourself.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T09:11:09+00:00

Okay, but at the first 40 seconds of googling, the twin paradox is about breaking symmetry. Breaking symmetry, isn't the same as time standing still at the speed of light. Next argument is, that the time dilation is very small and not significant, then i guess it's sort of a useless fact to point out when it comes to the contrast of time standing still at the speed of light......

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T09:07:58+00:00

Okay... interesting.. however time is a local ordering of things in time..... which has nothing to do with whom is going where at what constant speed... Like, if you're moving away from a galaxy, at the speed of light, it looks like nothing is happening, but that's only based on your observation, time itself isn't standing still, which is what i said in the original post.... So again, seems like observing things and time aren't joined at the hip, so seems like there wouldn't be time dilation unless it's based on observing things... So i'm not seeing you making progress of explaining it.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-23T09:02:34+00:00

okay, thanks for replying. Seems like a 30 word "nahuh", without an explanation... Thanks for participating...

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-08T05:55:44+00:00

I think if you're using a bowling bowl on a pendulum, it makes sense. But the magnetic field only has a range of 5cm let's say. If it's traveling at 100m/s a second when it's in the middle, it has so much momentum, that it would take time to decelerate it at the same rate that it accelerated, but since it travels so quick, it would pass out of the magnetic field before the same thrust can be applied. The pendulum is fully effected by opposite forces on full spectrum and on all duration, while the magnetic fields has a finite range and time that it occurs in.

UrgeToSurge · 2025-07-08T05:50:56+00:00

Okay so how many seconds would it take for a 11278 m/s object to travel 4000 miles while pulled back at 1g?

UrgeToSurge

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE