Motor Daddy

What is empty space?

Relative to the ship's speedometer and odometer, which measures distance traveled. Does the odometer rack up less miles the faster the ship travels? If the odometer was at zero at the beginning of the trip, what does it read after traveling 10 light years? Correct, traveling at the velocity of 3 ft/sec, you will travel 30 ft in 10 seconds, or you will travel 300 ft in 100 seconds. So what was the ships velocity if the ship traveled 10 light years at .99c (as stated in the OP?) The distance traveled is known. The velocity of travel is known.

So the faster he travels the less distance he travels?

Didn't we just establish that the ship traveled a distance of 10 light years during the trip?

I am asking what the ship's velocity was. Velocity is d/t. Distance divided by time.

What was the ships velocity (d/t)?

So if it took almost zero time for the pilot, and he traveled the distance of ten light years, what was his velocity?

A bait and switch? What's that? I presented the numbers for each engine as follows: Engine RPM-torque at that RPM (as measured on a dyno)-HP at that RPM-vehicle MPH-rear wheel torque (axle torque) The point I make: Which car will get to 67 MPH the soonest and travel the greatest distance in the same time? The questions are clearly defined. What?? A pic of the torque curves: Engine A is the 455 (blue diamonds.) They both use the same exact parts, except the 455 has a different bore and stroke. Surely you'll take the 455?

RPM, Torque, and Horsepower Here is a prime example between two different engines with completely different torque curves. Engine A in second gear (1.98) with a 3.23 rear gear and 26.5" tire. 2000 464 lb-ft 176 hp 24 mph 2967 RWTQ 2500 482 lb-ft 229 hp 30 mph 3082 RWTQ 3000 496 lb-ft 283 hp 37 mph 3172 RWTQ 3500 511 lb-ft 340 hp 43 mph 3268 RWTQ 4000 506 lb-ft 385 hp 49 mph 3236 RWTQ 4500 481 lb-ft 412 hp 55 mph 3076 RWTQ 5000 427 lb-ft 406 hp 61 mph 2730 RWTQ 5500 363 lb-ft 380 hp 67 mph 2321 RWTQ Engine B in second gear (1.98) with a 3.73 rear gear and 26.5" tire. 2309 410 lb-ft 180 hp 24 mph 3028 RWTQ 2887 430 lb-ft 236 hp 30 mph 3175 RWTQ 3464 460 lb-ft 303 hp 37 mph 3397 RWTQ 4041 465 lb-ft 357 hp 43 mph 3434 RWTQ 4619 465 lb-ft 408 hp 49 mph 3434 RWTQ 5196 445 lb-ft 440 hp 55 mph 3286 RWTQ 5773 390 lb-ft 428 hp 61 mph 2880 RWTQ 6351 330 lb-ft 399 hp 67 mph 2437 RWTQ Two identical cars (except for engine and gears, same weight) are moving along at a steady 24 mph in second gear side by side. They both punch it at the same exact time. Which one will pull ahead immediately, and get to 67 mph the soonest, and cover the greatest distance in the same time period? The one with the greatest engine TORQUE, or the one with the greatest engine HP?? No takers on engine A?? Jeez, we debated torque and HP for 1,000's of posts in several threads on other sites. No car guys in the crowd?

We don't move through time, we move, and we measure the distance traveled against a standard of duration. A velocity of 1 ft/sec for 1 second means a traveled distance of 1 ft. in the duration of 1 second. A velocity of 10 ft/sec for 1 second means a traveled distance of 10 ft. in the duration of 1 second. A velocity of 1,000 ft/sec for 1 second means a traveled distance of 1,000 ft. in the duration of 1 second. A velocity of 1,000,000,000,000,000 miles/sec for 1 second means a traveled distance of 1,000,000,000,000,000 miles in the duration of 1 second.

Velocity is what, d/t? What does another object have to do with my velocity? No, because I don't measure my second compared to HIS MOTION. I measure MY motion by measuring the distance and time traveled that I TRAVEL. It has nothing to do with his motion or position.

Is your second faster or slower than mine, where you are?

So when you measure the speed of light, since your second is different than mine, the light you measure actually travels a different distance in your second than when I measure the speed of light with my second?

The duration of a second is the same for you or me, regardless of how far away from me you are. In order for you to measure a second different than I do means that you measure the speed of light different than I do.

So they can ask the same question repeatedly of me, and expect a different answer each time they ask? Is that what you are saying? And again, I'm talking about the actual distance traveled, and the actual time it took to travel. There is no different reference frame after the time has elapsed, and you can't measure the distance and time until AFTER the time has elapsed. There is one definition of a second, not two. Since I am a distance away from you right now, do you measure a second differently that I do? So c is a constant velocity of 186,000 miles per second, but a second can not be a constant?

The ONLY reason why I repeatedly say the same things is because they repeatedly keep bringing up the same point(s). Am I supposed to have a different answer each time they ask the same question, or talk about the same point, in order to not repeat myself? The math describes the travel, not the perception of travel from different observers. I am talking about the ACTUAL numbers, not the perception of every other point in the universe of that motion. So how much different is a second from my frame of reference to a different frame of reference?

The Sun doesn't move? Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Whoops, I can't say that, because there is no "second," and there is no "mile." BTW, This is a family oriented site, could you please clean up the language? Isn't there some kind of "rule" for that?

The evidence is in the first post of this thread. The data acquisition systems don't lie. It seems a foot is no longer a foot, and a mile is no longer a mile. Whoops, there goes the speed of light.

I can see this is turning into a rules thing. I'm done.

I was just getting ready to call it quits tonight, it's 1:30 AM. I am going to bed, but I am going to tell you why your numbers are wrong in the morning, and yes, they are wrong, and I can prove it. Sorry, but I'm seriously tired. I'll reply in the morning.

He spent 400 years in space, regardless of the physical state of his condition or what the clock says. I just happen to have a birth certificate and calender to prove it. His birth certificate says he was born in 2050, and the calendar says it's 2475. He is 425 years old. He departed when he was 25, so he spent 400 years in space. If he traveled at .5c he traveled a total of 200 light years in 400 years. There is no disagreement with the numbers of distance and time. Who cares how old he looks, you just told me he is still alive, and the numbers prove he spent 400 years in space.

I don't doubt the aging difference, or the differentiation of the clocks. The trip took 400 years. The brother is 400 years older, regardless of how long his beard is, how many wrinkles he has, or the state of physical condition. Those are symptoms, not distance, and time. If the brother took a 400 year journey at .5c, he traveled 200 light years in 400 years. What's the problem?

What year were they born, and what year is it when he returns?

The linear velocity is irrelevant, as the constant rotational velocity is determining a duration. It was already established that a second was 300 revolutions of the constant velocity shaft. If the shaft changes ROTATIONAL VELOCITY a second will no longer be 300 revolutions, and I will have NO IDEA how much time has actually elapsed during an event.

But if the shaft changes rotational velocity it is no longer 300 revolutions per second. In other words, the shaft may only rotate 299 revolutions per second if it changes rotational velocity. That means the shaft is no longer accurate.