Photons, and everything else, like planets, try to go where time is least. Gravity curves spacetime because the photons or anything that has mass are seeking or are pulled toward a path of least time, which is a path of more gravity. Physicists have proven with atomic clocks and satellites that gravity slows time. Clocks run slower at lower altitudes where gravity is stronger. Time is least (flows more slowly) where gravity is most.
The earth orbiting the sun has momentum which keeps it in orbit. If the earth's momentum were to stop, the earth would seek the path of least time, and be pulled straight into the sun! It would not follow a curved path to the sun if it does not have momentum.
1) Mass causes gravity.
2) Mass seeks or is pulled where time is least.
3) The larger the mass, the least time is.
4) spacetime is curved to the curvature of the mass.
5) Without mass, time is not curved.
6) Without momentum near a mass, space is not curved.
Einstein said as you approach the speed light time slows down and mass increases. This also holds true for a black hole, because of its mass, time slows as one accelerates toward the event horizon and time stops at the event horizon. The reason why time slows down as you approach the speed of light is because the mass increases(More mass means less time). The question I have is why does mass slow time, or is my thinking curved also, lol?
only the atomic nucleus is tied into 3d normal space like we experience at macroscopic level - The electrons although endlessly trying to reach their opposite charge in the nucleus are forever displaced by random virtual particles that are squeezed between the nucleus and the electron by the pressure of interlocked matter forcing it's way thru the sea like a child pushes a fish net thru his aquarium. the bigger the net (mass) the bigger the gravity. I think they refer to it as a time frame. The electrons are actually trveling in time although tethered by a very short leash which might account for the uncertainty principle :) keep in mind I haven't done much reading so you may want to verify that my conjectures aren't all hosed but they are a working mans theory that help me do my job.
read somewhere they conside vacumn flucuations (virtual particles) with wavelengths below 1.7thz responsible for gravity and wavelengths above that equate to time. We share the same awareness of gravity as felt at the microscopic level but as for Time...3D is a macroscopic illusion. If we could scale down and stand on a nucleus we could see into time and our orbiting electron would appear and dissapear randomly all around us as our time frame keeps slamming into virtual particles that wink into and out of existince and displace the electron from reaching the proton.
because time and space are tied together in a matrix...when gravity(mass) bends space it also bends time.like if you drop a sphere into the water,the water is displaced around the sphere...but with space/time the area surrounding the sphere is compressed and displaced at the same time.
yes - I agree but was trying to put it in terms of the picoscopic since the time dimension is about to become available to us using Caltechs- Blacklights hydrinos or other "twisted" molecules. I wanted to break it down to the component level - those twisted molecules inside a polasma coil will have nuclei in normal space but their electrons are covalently bonded at an angle formed when the gas atoms were mixed between casimir plates (reduce dimensional confinement) this angle was fine inside the plates but upon exiting the covalent bond that formed while inside the plates now continue to hold the electrons at an angle that is suddenly into the virtual particle membrane (water surface in your analogy). these electrons will be pushing back hard against the virtual particles causing reaction to move matter without propellant AND give it leverage to slope away from the surrounding time frame(beneath your surface of water) out of normal space -they will appear to shrink like the reports of UFO's and can only be viewed from in front of the window where they submerged which might explain why chase aircraft see them fly off at very hi speed then lose them as they fly past the window -the speed might be accounted for by their direction -full 90 degrees and they could travel to another galaxy plus sidestep gravity which is a function of time(rate at which the kid is pushing the fish net thru the aquarium) . I just realized! if you travel at 90 degrees with both the drive I mentioned above and inertia damper I mentioned in another post we could actually have a star ship! the inertia damper is just ionized gas electrically spun into a whirlpool to form a saucer shaped dome above and below your craft it would slip thru the virtual particle with little inertia felt by occupants.
A claimed Scientific Breakthrough by BlackLight Power in Cranberry NJ was confirmed 10/24/08 by Rowan University but they were unable to explain the over unity results. While independently trying to reverse engineer this unexplained anomaly a patent filed in May by Caltech was uncovered that accounts for the results and is nothing less than astounding http://www.calphysics.org/Patent.html the patent describes a chemical method to rectify the vacumn fluctuations of the quantum field using casimir effect which is parallel metal plates at the nanoscopic scale.
An animation of the theory is here http://www.byzipp.com/animation2.htm
and the details here http://www.byzipp.com/energy
This is the breakthrough discovery of the century and will solve both energy and global warming issue.
Please suspend your skepticism for 5 minutes to check out these links -this is for real!
VR
Francis X Roarty
A clock is a mechanical device that measures time. If a mechanical clock speeds up or slows down because of some external force so what. Maybe it rained today. There is no space time connection.
The clocks on Earth/Space digital? Maybe electrons flow faster without gravity (or mass)? If you have a mechanical clock on Earth and in Space synchronized.. I bet they stay synchronized.
Jason
Quote from: brian334 on November 26, 2008, 01:57:56 PM
A clock is a mechanical device that measures time. If a mechanical clock speeds up or slows down because of some external force so what. Maybe it rained today. There is no space time connection.
Digital clocks are not mechanical.
Jason
Jason
Will you tell that to my boss.
It looks interesting.If time could be slowed down.It could also be speeded up?Maybe we could extract energy from different time flows?Take a difference between the two.If I could figure out how to turn a linear motion into a circular one I might have a force field that could be placed around a person to protect him or her against harm.I can stress space with a linear motion already using electric charges(capacitors).If I can turn that motion into a circular one.Then I might be able to slow time down far enough so that even light can't get through.Just an idea I had from the 1980's.triffid
PS.
The closest I came to it was a method of grinding grain where cattle or oxen move around in a circle
but their(circular) motion is converted into a linear motion(back and forth ) to grind the grain.I could not figure how to do the reverse(go from linear to circular).
Quote from: brian334 on November 26, 2008, 01:57:56 PM
A clock is a mechanical device that measures time. If a mechanical clock speeds up or slows down because of some external force so what. Maybe it rained today. There is no space time connection.
LMFAO. An atomic clock is not a mechanical or digital device. An atomic clock is a clock that uses the resonance frequencies of atoms as its resonator. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the resonator is "regulated by the frequency of the microwave electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by the quantum transition (energy change) of an atom or molecule. For more information on atomic clocks, refer to wikipedia.
I automaticly assumed this would be understood. In the very first mention of a clock I did mention atomic clock, and in other places I did not add atomic before the clock. Please note: All mentions of clocks is referring to atomic clocks.
More mass = slower time. Some ancient Sumerian tablet said that too! The planet Nibiru is several times larger than the Earth which explains why their time was slower and made them seem to live longer. It all makes perfect sense now!
Quote from: 4Tesla on November 26, 2008, 03:40:39 PM
The clocks on Earth/Space digital? Maybe electrons flow faster without gravity (or mass)? If you have a mechanical clock on Earth and in Space synchronized.. I bet they stay synchronized.
Jason
An atomic clock in orbit around the earth will not stay synchronized to an atomic clock on earth, the clock on earth will show less time as compared to the clock in orbit. If you have two atomic clocks orbiting the earth in the same orbit (spacetime), then they will stay synchronized. If the two atomic clocks are in different orbits, then they will show different time, the clock in the higher or furthest orbit will show more time than the clock in the lower orbit.
Take a look at these 2 questions.
1) When an object is orbiting the earth, then why does it not accelerate as it is orbiting?
2) When an object is not orbiting the earth but falling through to lower orbits then why does it accelerate?
In both questions the objects are under the influence of gravity or the earth's mass/energy, but you have different effects as far as acceleration is concerned.
My answer to question 1 is this: The object does not accelerate because the path that the object is following around the earth has the same curved time and the same curved space. A lower orbit will have a different curved time and a different curved space, etc.
My answer to question 2: The object will accelerate as it is falling through to lower orbits because there is a different curved time along the path that it is falling through. It is the space/time difference, that causes the object to accelerate if it doesn't have enough momentum to stay in that orbit.
When we see an object that curves along its trajectory path due to a large mass, then we are able to see that the space is curved. When we see an object that accelerates towards a large mass, then we are able to see how time is curved, we see the time being curved in the acceleration of the object.
Also consider this:
A black hole has so much mass that time gets slower as you approach the event horizon. It is not the velocity or acceleration towards the black hole that causes time to slow, but it is the mass that causes time to slow. If you increase your velocity or acceleration then you increase the energy/mass for that object. Since the energy/mass has increased then time has decreased. If you are on an object and the object's rest mass is large, then time will run slower on the larger rest mass object as compared to an object that has a small rest mass, just like what HeairBear said.
There may be physical forces in the universe that cause clocks to operate at different rates under different conditions, but that does not mean time changed. it only means the clocks changed. For example if I pound on a clock with a hammer and make it stop did I stop time? I don’t think so.
ok ok ok ok !!!
I have heard enough already ..
Number one question :
WTF is time ?
ie: you cant collect a bunch of seconds and call it a minute.. because those seconds dont exist beyond the moment, correct ?
So if you wish to aggregate or quantify the property time what is it you are sampling other than an idea ?
Maybe i can explain this better .. but I believe some will see the point regarding time and whether or not it is a participant.. ummm maybe ?
Or maybe it is explained best here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
Quote from: HeairBear on November 27, 2008, 12:34:37 AM
More mass = slower time. Some ancient Sumerian tablet said that too! The planet Nibiru is several times larger than the Earth which explains why their time was slower and made them seem to live longer. It all makes perfect sense now!
I disagree unless that planet is traveling near relativistic speeds. time is the virtual particle sea flowing thru the mesh of all atomic nuclei throughout the universe. I said nuclei because even the electrons orbiting the nucleus are already knee deep in time which accounts for uncertainty principle - from the electrons perspective they are being smoothly displaced by virtual particles from their intended path to the proton at the nucleus. From any other perspective the electron appears to be jumping around in time because it is intercepting the very stream of particles we experience as time in 3d before it reaches "NOW". Now is a 1 nuclei wide dimension at 90 degrees to normal space which means the "Present" has a volume that equals the entire cubic measure of the universe multipled by the average radius of a nucleus and would be "quadric" instead of cubic. AND that is ONLY the present! because once we can use "twisted" molecules like hydrinos to claw away from normal space the quadric universe will allow us to trave at another 90 degrees in paralell with the time line ... which then means that quadric volume essentially gets squared! Now for some cold water -these are my speculations and I could be totally hosed (but I don't think so)
Massive objects take a path of greatest proper time or spacetime distance, and light takes a path of least (zero) spacetime distance, provided they are acted on by gravity alone. The reason why light takes a path of least (zero) spacetime distance is because the frequency is very high and the wavelength is very short. If you increase the mass/energy you increase the frequency and the wavelength is shorter. Massive objects takes the path of greatest spacetime distance or proper time because the energy is not as high as light and hence a longer wavelength. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength.
Planck's formula: E=hf where:
E is the energy of a single photon,
f is the photon's frequency,
h is Planck's constant,
Einstein's formula: E=mc2 where:
E is energy,
m is mass,
c2 is the speed of light squared,
hence, hf=mc2
thus showing that the energy/mass of a photon is directly proportional to the frequency of the photon.
E=hf and E=mc2 so hf=mc2
1)mass/energy
2)wave/particle
3)space/time
4)frequency/wavelength
5)electricity/magnetism
frequency = energy/mass
wavelength = time
In order to understand this, you need to change your thinking of time. It has nothing to do with how fast the earth is orbiting the sun or how long it takes to make a revolution. 1 second of earth time is 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition makes the caesium oscillator (often called an atomic clock) the primary standard for time and frequency measurements. If you know the frequency, then you know the wavelength, and you also know the energy/mass, they are all related.
Gravityblock,
Will you explain what the connection is between the speed of light and the amount of energy in something?
the bound atom has potential energy insomuch as it is not interacting with the environment,when the constituent parts of the atom are freed the total mass becomes active with the environment thereby releasing the energy of the total weight at the maximum speed which is the speed of light.
Gravityblocker,
If light travels at the speed of light and things that travel at the speed of light have infinite mass than light must have infinite mass. Does light have infinite mass?
E = MC² is junk
Quote from: brian334 on November 27, 2008, 04:14:12 PM
Gravityblocker,
If light travels at the speed of light and things that travel at the speed of light have infinite mass than light must have infinite mass. Does light have infinite mass?
E = MC² is junk
Light has a relativistic finite mass. Remember a photon is massless, a photon's rest mass is zero.
An object cannot be accelerated to the speed of light, regardless of how much energy it absorbs. Its momentum and energy continue to increase, but its speed approaches a constant value â€" the speed of light. As the object approaches the speed of light, the relativistic mass tends towards infinity. When a force acts in the direction of motion, the relativistic mass goes up and the momentum goes up, but the speed hardly increases.
I made a few errors in post number 11. It does not affect why mass slows time. The errors may negate my idea on why an object does not accelerate when it is in orbit. I will need to rethink if curved spacetime is responsible for the acceleration or no acceleration idea when an object is in orbit. At this moment I am still leaning towards curved time being responsible for objects accelerating relative to the earth when falling vertically downwards, but will need more time to rethink this. Below are the corrections.
In Newtonian gravity:
N1) An object in circular orbit has constant speed but continuously changing velocity, relative to Earth, and is therefore accelerating towards the Earth relative to Earth.
N2) An object falling vertically downwards is also accelerating towards the Earth relative to Earth
In General Relativity:
GR1) An object in circular orbit is moving inertially, its velocity relative to itself (an inertial observer) is always zero, so its acceleration relative to a local inertial observer (itself) is zero.
GR2) An object falling vertically downwards is moving inertially, its velocity relative to itself (an inertial observer) is always zero, so its acceleration relative to a local inertial observer (itself) is zero.
In either case, it is still accelerating relative to Earth, but its "proper acceleration" is zero. All of this is mind boggling, as if my mind isn't boggled enough....lol
I'll be leaving town for a few days and will reply to some of the questions that have already been asked when I get back.
Quote from: gravityblock on November 27, 2008, 12:21:41 PM
Massive objects take a path of greatest proper time or spacetime distance, and light takes a path of least (zero) spacetime distance, provided they are acted on by gravity alone. The reason why light takes a path of least (zero) spacetime distance is because the frequency is very high and the wavelength is very short. If you increase the mass/energy you increase the frequency and the wavelength is shorter. Massive objects takes the path of greatest spacetime distance or proper time because the energy is not as high as light and hence a longer wavelength. The frequency simply describes the number of oscillations or cycles per second, while the term wavelength describes the distance between one wave and the next. Hence wavelength and frequency are inseparably intertwined: the higher the frequency the shorter the wavelength.
Planck's formula: E=hf where:
E is the energy of a single photon,
f is the photon's frequency,
h is Planck's constant,
Einstein's formula: E=mc2 where:
E is energy,
m is mass,
c2 is the speed of light squared,
hence, hf=mc2
thus showing that the energy/mass of a photon is directly proportional to the frequency of the photon.
E=hf and E=mc2 so hf=mc2
1)mass/energy
2)wave/particle
3)space/time
4)frequency/wavelength
5)electricity/magnetism
frequency = energy/mass
wavelength = time
In order to understand this, you need to change your thinking of time. It has nothing to do with how fast the earth is orbiting the sun or how long it takes to make a revolution. 1 second of earth time is 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This definition makes the caesium oscillator (often called an atomic clock) the primary standard for time and frequency measurements. If you know the frequency, then you know the wavelength, and you also know the energy/mass, they are all related.
Wavelength is only another means of quantifying time but it still does not make time if there is no time (frame of reference) does your oscillation occur ?
Quote from: dean_mcgowan on November 28, 2008, 07:14:11 AM
Wavelength is only another means of quantifying time but it still does not make time if there is no time (frame of reference) does your oscillation occur ?
Yes the oscillations occur. At 300 million meters per second (approximate speed of light) , a frequency of 300 million cycles per second (300 megahertz) draws a line in space with peaks one metre apart. Let's say if you're looking at a star that is 100 light years away from you, then you are seeing that star as it appeared 100 light years ago. If a star exploded right at this moment and it is 100 light years away, then in will take us 100 years before we see this explosion. Let's say we leave the earth traveling at the speed of light(this is a hypothetical) the instant we see the star explode. From our frame of reference traveling at the speed of light toward that star we will still see the explosion in all frames of reference, and it will appear as if time is standing still for us. When we get close to the star but still traveling at the speed of light, we will still see the explosion in our frame of reference, but on earth the explosion will have long past. As soon as we drop to no speed, then we will be in the vicinity of the star 100 after the explosion, but the people on earth will not see you for another 100 years. If you could travel 2 times the speed of light, then you will see the star as it was before the explosion in your frame of reference, but when you get to the star at twice the speed of light you will see the star as it was 100 years before it exploded in your frame of reference, then as soon as you drop to no speed, then you will see the explosion and be blown up also with the star and the people on earth will be see the star and yourself blown up at the same moment. You will have traveled back in time to the very instance the star exploded in the frame of reference for earth and yourself. You would have moved your position 100 light years within the universe instantanioulsy to an outside observer, and of course it took you 100 years to move your position instantaniously within the universe and you would have already died before actually being blown up with the star. If you travel more than 2 times speed of light then you will be traveling back in time from your reference point and from the reference point of an outside observer you will no longer be visible and will also be traveling back in time. Hope you can make sense of this.
I'm attaching a pdf file that I am drawing my ideas from. This idea that mass slows time is not my idea, so I can't take credit for this. The idea that mass slows time makes some sense to me, but it is a difficult thing to grasp. The title of this thread should probably be "Does mass slow time?" instead of "Why does mass slow time?" We know that according to general relativity that spacetime is curved due to a large mass. I believe the reason why spacetime is curved due to a large mass is because that large mass is leaking energy into space in the form of heat, light, radiation, and other forms of energy that we may or may not know about, thus losing its mass/energy. It is this energy that is leaked into space from a large mass that is causing spacetime to be curved since that energy is being dispersed around the large mass, thus there will be more energy in the vicinity of the large mass as opposed to further away, and it is the difference in the energy levels that causes mass/energy to follow where the energy is the greatest or possibly where time is least, since the more energy you have, the wavelength is shorter. If this assumption is correct, then it may be natures way of counterbalancing the loss of leaked energy by attracting or causing other objects to gravitate towards one another to regain the energy/mass that was lost, and this is known to us as gravity. This may be correct and it may also be wrong, but I think it is in line with Einstein's theories. I do think this is interesting if correct.
I'll try to answer some of the questions previously asked tommorow, cause im not feeling good. I do not have all the answers, and the answers that I give is what I think or believe to be correct and could always be wrong.
I think you have it a bit backwards. Fluctuations between space and time cause the phenomena of gravity. It is a symptom of a process not a cause. Matter simply exists just like energy. It is when that energy acts on that matter, propelling it through space and time that the phenomena of gravity occurs. As an object accelerates it creates a sort of "dip" in space and time. It makes sense when you think about it: Imagine two parallel lines. One is space one is time. As an object accelerates it takes less time to traverse the same ammount of space. So now one of our lines (time) remains straight while the line that represents space dips down. This is because in the same ammount of time you're travelling a larger expanse of space. This dip in space represents the phenomena of gravity as well as a different time frame all together. This is called special relativity which has recently been proven: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605
You can't just think of time as being a measurement because the length, width, and height of an object is also a measurement of the distance between two different points. According to Einstein, at the speed of light, length shrinks to zero and time stands still. Think of it this way: If you leave the face of a clock at the speed of light, the light that leaves after you can never catch up with you, therefor time has stopped. Also, if
something has a length, it must take time to pass.
Quote from: erickdt on November 29, 2008, 09:59:35 PM
I think you have it a bit backwards. Fluctuations between space and time cause the phenomena of gravity. It is a symptom of a process not a cause. Matter simply exists just like energy. It is when that energy acts on that matter, propelling it through space and time that the phenomena of gravity occurs. As an object accelerates it creates a sort of "dip" in space and time. It makes sense when you think about it: Imagine two parallel lines. One is space one is time. As an object accelerates it takes less time to traverse the same ammount of space. So now one of our lines (time) remains straight while the line that represents space dips down. This is because in the same ammount of time you're travelling a larger expanse of space. This dip in space represents the phenomena of gravity as well as a different time frame all together. This is called special relativity which has recently been proven: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605
I agree with everything you have said in the above, but you did not explain how, why or what is causing the fluctuations of space and time that causes gravity. What is causing the fluctuations between space and time? I say it is the energy that is leaked from a large mass that is causing the fluctuations between space and time. In physics, a gravitational wave is a fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime which propagates as a wave, traveling outward from a moving object or system of objects (Does this not sound like leaked energy from the large mass that is causing the wave?). Gravitational radiation is the energy transported by these waves. It is this leaked energy (gravitational radiation) that is responsible for creating the gravitational waves that is carrying the gravitaional radiation or leaked energy, which in turn causes the space and time to be curved. This is inline with GR and SR I believe.
The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is the range of all possible electromagnetic radiation frequencies. This includes radio waves, microwaves, light, infrared, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. The energy (radiation) is being transported due to these electromagnetic waves just like the gravitational waves is transporting the gravitational radiation or leaked energy. I guess physics just decided to give the wave that carries this energy a different name from the waves of the electromagnetic spectrum and I say they are one and the same, but I could be wrong. The electromagnetic waves and gravitational waves must be the same because they are both waves, carrying energy (radiation), and have a frequency, wavelength, etc
I think we agree, but looking at it from a different point in the process and not having it a bit backwards. One of the reasons why physics is so hard to understand is because things in physics are not very well defined and uses different terms for similar things, just my perspective on physics. This is the reason why this thread is in the Half Baked section.
Could gravity be explained as the nuclei of everything in the present forming a mesh net that sinks forward in time? As "future" virtual particles flow into the present they would both "squeeze through" the nuclei and "around" it. This difference between VP streaming "around" the nuclei versus VP squeezing "through" the nuclei would superimpose a high speed venturi stream exiting the nuclei onto a normal wake pattern which might set up the "equilibrium" points we call "shells". The poor electron's desire to reach it's proton is balanced by this displacement pressure of the VP and it settles into these Lagrange points. A single hydrogen atom should orient directly into the "past" but multiple electrons in the atom or in adjacent atoms will set up oscillations between their electrical repulsion of each other and the time stream trying to pin them straight back into the past. The uncertainty principle proves that the electrons are knee deep in the time stream because we know temporal anomalies are subjective and that someone standing on the electron would move smoothly from one location to another by simple physical displacement in the time stream. This proves that the "Present" is experienced from the perspective of the "nuclei mesh" sinking in the sea of time.The "pressure on the "mesh" would grow with mass accounting for gravity. The "present" we experience is the VP streaming around and through our "1 nuclei mesh" . The"fluctuations" would simply be the interactions between the time stream and sub atomic particles like the electron oscillations I suggested previously. -Did I say anything really wrong or really new?
VR
Newbie
Perhaps this illustration I've made will better explain what I'm thinking:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi265.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii203%2Fegustafson2002%2FBigBang.jpg&hash=4139339e2d4ab26f31a1f05c684d6970e9fd7595)
Now, this is drawn in two dimensions, try to imagine it across all four. In the context of four dimensions this dip and all of its contents disappear from any view not within the newly established timeframe (caused by special relativity). Some might call this another dimension. This phenomena could also be responsible for the abundance of "dark matter" out there.
Hi Folks,
the Link here I found years ago ( Energy-Density alters time ):
http://www.allanstime.com/Research/Pendulum/index.html (http://www.allanstime.com/Research/Pendulum/index.html)
You also should pay attention to his vita :
http://www.allanstime.com/Bio/index.html (http://www.allanstime.com/Bio/index.html)
Best Regards
Kator01
@erickdt regarding "Now, this is drawn in two dimensions, try to imagine it across all four. In the context of four dimensions this dip and all of its contents disappear from any view not within the newly established timeframe (caused by special relativity). Some might call this another dimension. This phenomena could also be responsible for the abundance of "dark matter out there."
According to the file I have attached a few posts ago it could be that the force carrying virtual photons cannot be detected because they are in another dimension? Could their mass be smeared around the universe in another small dimension, with only force detectable in our normal size visible dimensions? (Magnetism as invisible plumbing behind our reality, non-locality, like Einstein's spooky action at a distance via EPR channels.) The October 12, 1999 Time Travel episode of PBS's NOVA showed photons traveling at 1.7 times the speed of light via quantum tunneling. This faster than light communication may imply travel through another dimension. A short distance traveled at the speed of light in a very small dimension could appear as a large distance traveled faster than the speed of light in our normal size visible dimensions. Quantum tunneling may be direct evidence of the other hidden dimensions in string theory. I also believe this may be responsible for the dark matter out there.
Also according to the article, A star with enough mass near the end of it's fusion phase can go supernova, and may leave behind a neutron star, or a black hole, depending on the mass available. Certain rapidly rotating neutron stars, known as Magnetars, are believed to produce the strongest magnetic fields in the universe. A black hole is an object of such dense mass that it creates a gravitational field so strong that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light! If black holes have a magnetic field, and it can get out, this seems to imply that virtual photons (flux quanta) can travel faster than the speed of light! Black holes may evaporate by a process known as Hawking radiation, (named after Stephen Hawking who theorized it). Black holes may also evaporate by quantum tunneling. Quantum tunneling is when a particle penetrates a barrier which it ought not have enough energy to penetrate.
I haven't had time to digest your drawings or comments yet, but your drawings do appear to be leading you to other dimensions and dark matter and also may be similar to what the mfield article is referring to. I think I have heard that something like 96% of the universe appears to be missing. What you may be saying is similar to a 2D viewer only seeing the shadows of a 3D object. It appears that m-theory may be on the right track and not yet complete.
Both I and the wife are sick and I can't get myself to do any deep thinking or analyzing at this moment.
As I stated in a previous post that this idea that mass slows time is not my own, I also attached a pdf file in a previous post that I am drawing my ideas from. The pdf file talks alot about magnets, photons, etc. Nobel prize winner Richard Feynman explains in his sum over histories interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that photons go where time is least. They follow the path of least time. Since the document has only been downloaded twice, I do not see any reason in continuing this discussion because it shows very little interest. If for some reason the document is downloaded and the idea shows some interest, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion, until then I'll be on to something else.......lol
Thanks to all who posted a reply to this topic.
"If you break a leg, be thankful you had a leg to break"
Quote from: 4Tesla on November 26, 2008, 03:40:39 PM
The clocks on Earth/Space digital? Maybe electrons flow faster without gravity (or mass)? If you have a mechanical clock on Earth and in Space synchronized.. I bet they stay synchronized.
Jason
Electron flow is not a factor but velocity is. GPS satellites are compensated in their slower reality compared to the receivers on the planet's surface - otherwise the system wouldn't work.
And perfectly sychronized clocks of mechanical or electronic function do, indeed, run ever so slighly slower on a space shuttle at 17,5000 mph. Time dialation is a genuinely observable reality - a part of the time/space/matter conundrum that is well observed and predictable - yet completely unexplained or understood.
And everybody knows that a child spotting ice cream approaches at near the speed of light, making the treat appear huge, only to find it's not - wherein they always want more.
I have been thinking about this thread for some time now.I posted some comments on the first page here about an idea I've had since the 1980's.Something about turning linear motion into circular motion.
If gravity stresses space with a linear motion as I suspect it does how is it that it can slow down time?
Maybe I can slow down time with an oddshaped capacitor?If a sphere of mass can do it ,maybe I don't need to convert linear motion to circlar motion afterall.I may sound crazy here but there might be new ways to do this.If I can slow down the flow of time to a point that nothing can cross the affected area then I have a force field that bullets cannot cross ,a force field that missles cannot cross.If we look at an atom with electrons speeding around the nucleus at the speed of light.Those electrons are going through time dilation(the flow of time have stopped for them) thus creating a barrier that nothing can easily get through.Thus electronic forces in matter are stronger than the forces of gravity and so on and so on.Just thinking out loud here.Triffid
I was thinking that I had to have a real fancy structure of a capacitor to slow down time but if a ball of mass can do it then maybe a much simpler capacitor can do it too.I guess that is where my fuzzy thinking is taking me.I can work with variable charges but not with variable masses.Triffid
I have a very very very helpful theory about this question. Look in the DC AND FREQUENCY? post here in Half-Baked Ideas. There are 2 continuous post made by me explaining the effect.
Time is a vector inside the magnetic spectrum of energy. Since Matter is EM energy... maybe you can find a really insteresting idea. :)
So the faster you go near the speed of light, the more your mass increases, so is the inverse true, the slower you go the less your mass is?
e/m = c²
Hey,
Have you thought anytime about what kind of energy moves a beam/ray of light?
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on December 23, 2008, 12:54:05 PM
So the faster you go near the speed of light, the more your mass increases, so is the inverse true, the slower you go the less your mass is?
e/m = c²
Yes, the inverse is also true, the slower you go the less mass/energy.
G'day all,
Perhaps the real question here should be: " Does mass slow time or does it slow down clocks?"
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 03, 2009, 02:36:59 AM
...
Perhaps the real question here should be: " Does mass slow time or does it slow down clocks?"
Hans von Lieven
Aha!
Yep, mass can slow down our ways of quantisation / measuring "time".... "Clocks" mechanisms and workings made in many ways...
But is there really a way to influence the "time" as a logical progress of events, or a continuation of happenings?
A million Dollar question (better, a correct answer to that question)...
Will you stop aging old if you stop all those clocks? Can you slow bio-mechanism if one chooses to constantly travel Westwise?
Ah, never mind...
Cheers!
ha....
Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 03, 2009, 02:36:59 AM
G'day all,
Perhaps the real question here should be: " Does mass slow time or does it slow down clocks?"
Hans von Lieven
Good question Hans and glad to see you making a distinction between time and clocks.
I believe that mass slows time and also slows down clocks. Einstein said at the speed of light, time stands still, or as you approach the speed of light, time slows down. A photon is believed to be massless when at rest, and not even the photon can travel faster than the speed of light because time has stopped for the photon. Without time you can not accelerate to a higher speed.
What I find interesting is how physics talk about photons and virtual photons. A photon can be detected but a virtual photon has never been detected or isolated. The photon is also the force carrier of the electromagnetic force. When a photon strikes a metal plate it ejects an electron, and this can be seen in solar panels. Physics says
virtual photons are responsible for the magnetic lines of force in a permanent magnet, but have never been detected. When you pass a conductor through a magnetic field it causes electrons to move along the conductor similiar to a photon striking a metal plate. It appears that photons are responsible for the movement of electrons. I believe the reason why virtual photons can't be detected is because the magnetic lines of force is providing "time" for the virtual photon to accelerate faster than the speed of light, thus the virtual photon is escaping detection or possibly in another dimension. Magnethos in post #35 said he thinks "Time is a vector inside the magnetic spectrum of energy. Since Matter is EM energy...." Also, If black holes have a magnetic field, and it can get out, this seems to imply that virtual photons (flux quanta) can travel faster than the speed of light! Black holes may evaporate by a process known as Hawking radiation, (named after Stephen Hawking who theorized it).
I didn't answer your question Hans, but if you look at Planks constant, you may find the answer.
Quote from: spinner on January 03, 2009, 03:07:03 AM
Aha!
Yep, mass can slow down our ways of quantisation / measuring "time".... "Clocks" mechanisms and workings made in many ways...
But is there really a way to influence the "time" as a logical progress of events, or a continuation of happenings?
A million Dollar question (better, a correct answer to that question)...
Will you stop aging old if you stop all those clocks? Can you slow bio-mechanism if one chooses to constantly travel Westwise?
Ah, never mind...
Cheers!
I watched a tv program the other day that said without gravity a person ages faster than a person that is in gravity. Also, without gravity you lose bone mass,etc......So they are experimenting with creating a gravitational field within a spacecraft so space travelers don't age faster and lose bone mass, etc. Gravity is related to the mass of an object.
Mass is energy, and energy is responsible for gravity, responsible for curving time, and responsible for curving space.
Perhaps you'd like to read Tesla's thoughts on curved space...
From: "Prepared Statement by Nikola Tesla"
Quote
During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space.
According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible. But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
Quote from: duff on January 06, 2009, 06:18:40 PM
Perhaps you'd like to read Tesla's thoughts on curved space...
From: "Prepared Statement by Nikola Tesla"
During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space.
According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible. But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are also all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
I was wondering when someone was going to bring ether into this discussion. The ether is so often over looked and so misunderstood.
I recognize the ether and it does play a role with gravity and straighting out the curves of space, and I also believe that the ether (or pressure) may be responsible for the expanding universe. According to Tesla in the above, "Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible." The curvature of space from a large mass does straighten as you are further away from the mass due to the ether (or pressure) of the universe and this straightening of space due to the ether is the reaction to the action of the large mass. Also, when in the vicinity of the mass, the ether interacts with higher energies from the mass, which causes space to be curved. It should be noted that Tesla thinks of space being curved from a different view point of general relativity or special relativity. From Tesla's view, the ether or space does not curve due to a large mass, and this is correct. From GR and SR the space is curved due to a large mass, and this is also correct. Tesla views space as a field of force or ether/pressure and GR/SR views space as a vacuum. In GR/SR space is said to be curved in the presence of a mass, and this curvature of space only refers to the trajectory paths of energy and mass, and does not mean that the ether, vacuum, or pressure of the universe curves which is what Tesla is referring to. After saying this, space is curved as far as mass/energy is concerned, and space is not curved as far as the ether/pressure of the universe is concerned. I do not see any contradictions here in thinking, I only see contradictions from using different definitions to describe something.
A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of empty space. Einstein abandoned the concept of a cosmological constant after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory off the idea that the universe is unchanging. However, the discovery of cosmic acceleration in the 1990s has renewed interest in a cosmological constant. If the universe expands slightly, then the expansion releases vacuum energy, which causes yet more expansion.
In physics vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when devoid of matter (known as free space). The vacuum energy is deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which are themselves derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle. Its effects can be observed in various phenomena (such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the Van-Der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thought to have consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales.
Is vacuum energy, the ether, zero point energy, cosmological constant, dark energy, background energy, and space different terms for the same phenomena? I think they are all the same.
Maybe my thinking is curved, I don't know, but it makes sense to me.......lol
the faster a mass(like a rocket) travels through space the slower time gets for everyone aboard that mass(rocket).So why not rotate space through a mass and get the same result?Slower time flow for the entire mass? triffid
since space has no mass it would not take infinite energy to make chambers that people could step into to age at a slower pace.Triffid
so how do you rotate space through an object?I have been seeking that answer since 1984.triffid
Quote from: triffid on January 08, 2009, 12:28:33 PM
so how do you rotate space through an object?I have been seeking that answer since 1984.triffid
Just move your body - this way you rotate "space" (your body) through the "object" (earth's atmosphere - air). Objects, matter and space (space-time) are made of the same "thing" - ask Einstein ;) Run towards west with a bit faster than 1000 miles per hour and you can defeat Earth's time...in theory... does eskimos live longer than us? ???
Well to rotate "space" through an "object" maybe you do it with a black hole, what about a fan? - "space" air through an "object" fan... an electric motor maybe - rotor/stator ... looks like there is plenty of time machines are we one of them? ???... yeah i know, the real question is how do we rotate TIME BACKWARDS? ... maybe while rewinding a video tape - isn't tape a curved space? What about the data spinning on a HDD? ::)
...I would say that our mind can travel through time in any direction, but not our body... ahh... Einstein also said "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." :P
Dann
Do you think you would be able to feel time speeding up or slowing down? seems like you wouldn't......
here is a whopper
if "Objects, matter and space (space-time) are made of the same thing"
and mass has inertia, does time also have inertia?
Quote from: gravityblock on November 25, 2008, 05:31:30 AM
Photons, and everything else, like planets, try to go where time is least. Gravity curves spacetime because the photons or anything that has mass are seeking or are pulled toward a path of least time, which is a path of more gravity. Physicists have proven with atomic clocks and satellites that gravity slows time. Clocks run slower at lower altitudes where gravity is stronger. Time is least (flows more slowly) where gravity is most.
The earth orbiting the sun has momentum which keeps it in orbit. If the earth's momentum were to stop, the earth would seek the path of least time, and be pulled straight into the sun! It would not follow a curved path to the sun if it does not have momentum.
1) Mass causes gravity.
2) Mass seeks or is pulled where time is least.
3) The larger the mass, the least time is.
4) spacetime is curved to the curvature of the mass.
5) Without mass, time is not curved.
6) Without momentum near a mass, space is not curved.
Einstein said as you approach the speed light time slows down and mass increases. This also holds true for a black hole, because of its mass, time slows as one accelerates toward the event horizon and time stops at the event horizon. The reason why time slows down as you approach the speed of light is because the mass increases(More mass means less time). The question I have is why does mass slow time, or is my thinking curved also, lol?
Mass Time and Energy are all the same thing. A newton is Kgm(S^-2). It is better to use impulse and momentum to define states of matter as Force multiplied by time = Mass multiplied by velocity. So yes Einstein was right in his thinking but he could not grasp how or why it worked. It is a reality because from a higher perspective one traveling at the speed of light in reference frame A (lower) would appear to be traveling slow in a higher reference frame B. Might even appear to be a point charge that simply moves slow. Mass slows time when it is being accelerated because the energy to accelerate that mass must come from the environment and in any instance mass is moved it requires energy from the environment by way of (mass or simply time). The reason why the original atomic bomb is so destructive is because it creates the energy it consumes in the process and time is actually gained as a result. The energy that moves then initially moves at the speed of light because time has no bounds on it. Whenever time is "put on tap" energy's force essentially becomes infinite, until the equilibrium returns by way of distribution of energy back through mass. Gravity can actually be viewed as a similar force to density and every planet or rock is bound by it's respective forces of every other interacting atom. Believe it or not the atom is as powerful as a star under the right circumstance. The limiting factor for tapping that energy is reliant upon the ability of the individual and the natural barriers of nature its self. If yours is curved then mine is twisted. :D
@Alien509
I agree to what you are sayin'... so if i try to simplify this a lot (just to get the feeling), lets say that everything is like a soft rubber cube - if time is the height, mass is the lenght and all the other stuff is in there also, we included... OMG, we are one... lol ...but, are we jumping? :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma5N0Gd3rM8
Dann
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 08, 2009, 04:20:58 PM
Do you think you would be able to feel time speeding up or slowing down? seems like you wouldn't......
here is a whopper
if "Objects, matter and space (space-time) are made of the same thing"
and mass has inertia, does time also have inertia?
No, niether matter, energy, space or time are the same thing.
Matter is stuff.
Energy is the potential to do work.
Space is simply distance, a measurement, not a thing.
Time too is a measurement but it's a constant measurement by which everything else can be compared.
Now I'm not talking about time as in the time that your clock or watch. That's special relativistic time. That concept of time is based entirely on your relative speed as you travel through the Universe. As was pointed out before: we may think that we are perfectly stationary sitting here in front of our computers but in the context of the Universe we are travelling millions of miles per second. Outside of our little piece of special relativity time is indeed a constant. We'll just never be able to experience it...
Quote from: triffid on January 08, 2009, 12:23:40 PM
the faster a mass(like a rocket) travels through space the slower time gets for everyone aboard that mass(rocket).So why not rotate space through a mass and get the same result?Slower time flow for the entire mass? triffid
So why not rotate space through a mass and get the same result? This may be how ufo's move through space and time.
There is speculation that ufo's may curve spacetime around their spacecraft which moves them through space at incredible speeds. This may allow them to travel faster than light since they would be dragging spacetime around them, and this is known as frame dragging (Look up frame dragging in wikipedia). I have a theory that the curved magnetic lines of force that photons follow inside permanent magnets allows the photons to move faster than light due to frame dragging, which causes the photons to escape detection and are called virtual photons instead. Frame dragging gives a particle or an object more time to continue accelerating.
If you see a fish in the water and throw a spear at it you will miss the fish because the fish was never where you aimed, the water distorted the image of the fish by bending light. This is an illusion, the fish was never where you believed it to be, the same thing occurs with curved space and mass slowing time----it's an illusion. What is it you will always find when these illusions occur? A change in density of the media, this is the same reason you see a mirage in the desert. Time is relative to the observer, like a slow moving train seen from a mountain top and a fast moving train seen near its tracks----they are the same train only the observer has changed. True understanding is having the knowledge to understand that what you are seeing or sensing is an illusion, please tell me you don't honestly believe time can speed up or slow down? Does this make any sense?
It does not... who invented time anyway? :D
OK, but what about the astronauts "non" aging 'cause they are not exposed to gravity? So time and aging doesn't really have anything in common if the observation point is not the same. Isn't time just a measurement of earth's rotation - a frequency to rely on? So now if we take that relation point and move it to infinite high frequency, are we now going back to the future ??? :D
Dann
I don't know why mass slows time. I just know that every time I walk past my wife's ass, I have to reset my watch. :-\
HAAAAAAAAHHHAAAAA funny
Magnetism and gravity are one and the same.
Mass alone is not enough to affect time. It needs the capability to warp the fabric of space and only magnetism can accomplish this. Just don't forget magnetism's mother,.. Electron.
:)
so....time is like a cloud that is drawn in with gravity and mass the more gravity you experience the more time you pass through....right?
mass bunches up time around it? So here's an idea..... would gravity have a refracting ability? like surface tension on water? would time stretch out thinner and thinner or is there a specific time density for outerspace? hard to describe, say you have a certain amount of particles for a given area, to have a cluster you would pull in the surrounding particles so, the density would change from static density to low density to high density.....am i making any sense?
Quote from: erickdt on January 08, 2009, 06:55:00 PM
No, niether matter, energy, space or time are the same thing.
Matter is stuff.
Energy is the potential to do work.
Space is simply distance, a measurement, not a thing.
Time too is a measurement but it's a constant measurement by which everything else can be compared..
The length, height, and width of an object is also a measurement just like time. You said "Space is simply distance, a measurement, not a thing." So according to your statement one could say that the length, height, and width of an object is just a measurement, not a thing. Also, if something has a length (a measurement), then it must take time (a measurement) to pass.
Matter is concentrated energy in a small amount of space.
Energy is diluted matter in a larger amount of space.
Space is the energy that permeates or fills the entire universe at the Plank's length (known as the ether, background energy, vacuum energy, pressure, dark energy, zero point energy, etc).
The vacuum is the absence of all matter or energy (the absence of the elementary particles and forces of space), which would be outside of the known universe. Please note, Time still exists and runs slightly faster in this vacuum of nothingness as compared to the space within the universe (More energy/mass = slower time, Less energy/mass = faster time, No energy/mass = slightly more time than space).
On the edge of space, where space and the vacuum are 0 Plank length's away from each other, The pressure of space will force the energy/mass one plank length into the vacuum, which gives the universe more space, energy, and time to repeat the process. It also moves the vacuum outwards. If space and the vacuum had equal time, then there would be no universe. Let's say you have a small universe that is created from a black hole that is 1 plank of energy and 1 plank of time within 1 plank of space, and the vacuum was also 1 plank of time. Now let's say that the 1 plank of space received 1 plank of energy from a black hole and that plank of energy smashes into the plank of energy that was already in this small universe. What will happen? The small universe would be destroyed and the energy, space, and time of the small universe would be given back to the black hole, because the time in space and the vacuum was equal. But if the vacuum had more time than the space of the small universe, then the universe will continue to expand its space, energy, and time. Black holes give birth not only to the galaxies but also to other universes. When a black hole is formed, then it breaks all energy and mass that flows into its event horizon or the singularity into the elementary particles and forces, which causes a Big Bang and creates another universe that is self-sustaining.
Time is the energy. Time allows energy ( the elementary particles and forces of space) to propagate. Without time, there would be no universe, Without time, energy would not be able to do work. Without time energy would not exist.
So, the universe did not come out of nothing, but it came out of everything (time). God has no beginning and no end. The alpha and the omega. God is in the past, the present and the future. God created the universes. God is real. God is energy. God is all knowing and all powerful. God knows the deepest desires of your hearts. God is the almighty creator. There are three heavens mentioned in the bible; The sky, space, and God's dwelling place. God's dwelling place is the vacuum or time and is omnipresent, God is everywhere. God is as real as you and I.
That is pretty much my theory of everything and the universe. I don't really have much more to add to this, other than maybe corrections, clarification or more details.
@erikdt: I respect your ideas, opinions, and theories. I am not saying you are wrong and I am right.
I am only expressing my own thoughts, which may be different than yours.
I want my Nobel Prize! .........lol
God Bless All
.
Quote from: erickdt on January 08, 2009, 06:55:00 PM
No, niether matter, energy, space or time are the same thing.
Matter is stuff.
Energy is the potential to do work.
Space is simply distance, a measurement, not a thing.
Time too is a measurement but it's a constant measurement by which everything else can be compared.
Now I'm not talking about time as in the time that your clock or watch. That's special relativistic time. That concept of time is based entirely on your relative speed as you travel through the Universe. As was pointed out before: we may think that we are perfectly stationary sitting here in front of our computers but in the context of the Universe we are travelling millions of miles per second. Outside of our little piece of special relativity time is indeed a constant. We'll just never be able to experience it...
I look at it as...
Space is a medium. I don't know what it's made of other than to say it's elastic. (aka ether)
Energy is a result of lossless waves that undulate that space. (aka zero point energy, vacuum energy, dark energy)
Matter is an effect resulting from the way those waves interact under certain conditions. And so are gravity and inertia.
Time is simply a way of saying that one thing happens after another. The measurement of the rate at which one thing happens after another, i.e. the measurement of time, is a human activity.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
Gamma rays has more energy than ultraviolet rays. Why does gamma rays have more energy than ultraviolet rays? Simply because it is using more time for energy than ultraviolet rays, thus since it used more time for energy, there is less time available for the gamma rays. If you use more time for energy, then you have more energy, but you have less time available. If you use less time, then you have less energy, but you have more time available. Time is the energy that the elementary particles of the universe use. When the elementary particles use time for energy, then there is less time available for the elementary particles. When the particles use less time for energy, then there will be more time available for the particles to experience.
The equation e=mc2 is the total amount of energy that is available to a system. If the system uses every bit of time that is available for energy, then there will be no time left over for the system to experience anything, clocks would not tick in this system. Time will be standing still in this system. Also, since this system used all available time for it's energy, it can not obtain more energy unless you find a way to give more time to the system. If you found a way to provide more time for this system, then you could travel faster than light. The reason why light has a maximum speed is because light has used all the available time. If you provide more time for light to use for energy, then it will travel at a faster speed than it currently does.
I believe the question of this thread, "why does mass slow time?" has been answered. I also believe this correctly defines what energy is. Energy is the amount (quantity) of time that a system is using. This also defines what time is. Time is the amount of energy that is available to a system.
Do you still say time is only a measurement? If you still think time is just a measurement, then I do not have the words or the knowledge to convince you otherwise.
thanks for your answer.At least you gave me one(an answer).Moving one's body through space does take energy but if the earth's rotation could supply it then we might be headed for a breakthrough of sorts.Triffid
Quote from: Steven Dufresne on January 09, 2009, 10:21:11 AM
I look at it as...
Space is a medium. I don't know what it's made of other than to say it's elastic. (aka ether)
Energy is a result of lossless waves that undulate that space. (aka zero point energy, vacuum energy, dark energy)
Matter is an effect resulting from the way those waves interact under certain conditions. And so are gravity and inertia.
Time is simply a way of saying that one thing happens after another. The measurement of the rate at which one thing happens after another, i.e. the measurement of time, is a human activity.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
Space is not a medium. Space is the distance between objects. The mere fact that it is called space implies that it is void of objects AKA matter.
Energy is not the "result" of anything. Energy (and matter) have existed forever and ever and ever. We know this because neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. That is scientific, proven, fact. See: the laws of thermo-dynamics & the law of the conservation of matter.
Time is a term that has many meanings. Time in the context of a discussion of space/time and physics is constant and therefore a good benchmark to measure by.
Quote from: erickdt on January 09, 2009, 03:50:31 PM
Space is not a medium. Space is the distance between objects. The mere fact that it is called space implies that it is void of objects AKA matter.
Energy is not the "result" of anything. Energy (and matter) have existed forever and ever and ever. We know this because neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. That is scientific, proven, fact. See: the laws of thermo-dynamics & the law of the conservation of matter.
Time is a term that has many meanings. Time in the context of a discussion of space/time and physics is constant and therefore a good benchmark to measure by.
Actually, after more thought I'm back to agreeing with you re time, though gravityblock has provided for some nifty thinking.
However, even in the world of physics, space has multiple definitions (just as in the standard model, the vacuum is filled with energy, not what you'd expect of a vacuum.) In the wave structure of matter model, space is a medium.
As for energy, the "result" of something can still have quantity which can be something which can neither be created nor destroyed. Not everyone here agrees with the law of conservation of energy and matter, but I'm with you on that one too [EDIT: though I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it being repealed some day should we ever learn to engineer space].
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
Quote: Space is not a medium. Space is the distance between objects. The mere fact that it is called space implies that it is void of objects AKA matter.
Incorrect. Only because an object occupies space that does not mean that the space disappears. It is still there. Space is simply a frame of reference.
Quote: Energy is not the "result" of anything. Energy (and matter) have existed forever and ever and ever. We know this because neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. That is scientific, proven, fact. See: the laws of thermo-dynamics & the law of the conservation of matter.
Also incorrect. It is a scientific THEORY that has so far not been disproven.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 09, 2009, 04:21:20 PM
Quote: Space is not a medium. Space is the distance between objects. The mere fact that it is called space implies that it is void of objects AKA matter.
Incorrect. Only because an object occupies space that does not mean that the space disappears. It is still there. Space is simply a frame of reference.
Quote: Energy is not the "result" of anything. Energy (and matter) have existed forever and ever and ever. We know this because neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. That is scientific, proven, fact. See: the laws of thermo-dynamics & the law of the conservation of matter.
Also incorrect. It is a scientific THEORY that has so far not been disproven.
Hans von Lieven
I can agree with you on the points regarding space.
With regards to conservations of energy and matter: Are you for real? They're scientific laws that have NEVER even come close to being proven incorrect. You're arguments attempts to illicit proof of a negative, which is impossible...
Quote from: erickdt on January 09, 2009, 04:48:52 PM
I can agree with you on the points regarding space.
With regards to conservations of energy and matter: Are you for real? They're scientific laws that have NEVER even come close to being proven incorrect. You're arguments attempts to illicit proof of a negative, which is impossible...
Sorry Eric,
You say that I am trying to elicit proof of a negative, this is not so. It could well be within the realm of possibility that someone one day creates energy or matter. Even science accepts this. But until then we have a theory that appears to work, at least as far as we can tell.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: triffid on January 09, 2009, 02:47:33 PM
thanks for your answer.At least you gave me one(an answer).Moving one's body through space does take energy but if the earth's rotation could supply it then we might be headed for a breakthrough of sorts.Triffid
Think broader like G.
Let's say someone is in this sphere that is spinning. Now this person has to do an exceeding amount of work to get anywhere without being thrown around. Now what if the sphere was spinning and the person was permanently attached to that sphere- suddenly it becomes much easier to move. Now if you leave earth's gravity then in essence your feet aren't bound too well to anything (in this huge rotating sphere). So now what you have to do is figure out how to grab hold of what little is there, because if not- your heading somewhere rather quickly are you not? :D
Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 09, 2009, 07:17:19 PM
Sorry Eric,
You say that I am trying to elicit proof of a negative, this is not so. It could well be within the realm of possibility that someone one day creates energy or matter. Even science accepts this. But until then we have a theory that appears to work, at least as far as we can tell.
Hans von Lieven
We shouldn't get too bogged down by this disagreement but one last thought: science does not accept that. Within the context of our Universe science most certainly doesn't accept that COE and COM could ever be violated. Only insofar as the fact that we can never and will never know the conditions and restrictions that exist outside of our Universe (in the multi-verse) would this even be a possibility. Since it's impossible to observe these conditions (outside of our Universe or dimension if you like) debating whether or not COM and COE apply is a moot point...
Quote from: erickdt on January 10, 2009, 11:51:47 AM
We shouldn't get too bogged down by this disagreement but one last thought: science does not accept that. Within the context of our Universe science most certainly doesn't accept that COE and COM could ever be violated. Only insofar as the fact that we can never and will never know the conditions and restrictions that exist outside of our Universe (in the multi-verse) would this even be a possibility. Since it's impossible to observe these conditions (outside of our Universe or dimension if you like) debating whether or not COM and COE apply is a moot point...
There are alot of things that science did not accept as being possible, but later was proven to be possible. At one point, science couldn't understand how it was possible for the bumble bee to fly. Also at one point they believed that energy was delivered in a continuous flow. Then later it was suggested to be delivered in quanta or packets of energy according to experiments and observations, but some did not accept this to be true. They believed that matter could only absorb the energy in packets or quanta. The current understanding is energy is delivered in quanta and not absorbed in quanta, and this belief will stand until an experiment or observation
suggests otherwise. I believe this is the reason why you need a changing magnetic field of flux in order to cause electrons to move along a conductor. The virtual photons of a permanent magnet are traveling faster (faster than speed of light or possibly a continuous flow of virtual photons and
not in quanta) than the current through a conductor and cutting its flow off. When you move a permanent magnet through a conductor, you are not cutting the flow of current in the conductor, thus you have electricity.
We have created new materials that nature does not (or very rare) create on its own. Once we master nano technology and its applications become widely used, this will open up so many new possibilities. I have noticed from my own experiences in life that roadblocks are always being thrown into your path, and workarounds are found. We need to find a way to workaround nature and this wouldn't be violating its laws. I believe a permanent magnet can be manufactured at the nano scale to cause its magnetic field of flux to constantly change or to be delivered slower (or in quanta and not continuous) than the current that is flowing along a conductor and this would be a workaround of nature and provide us with unlimited energy. It may even be possible to achieve this without nano scale, and maybe has already been down by the rulers of this system of things. I heard that what we currently have (the general public) in technology, the government or military had 20 to 30 years ago. So, we won't know the current capabilities of our governments until 20 years from now. That is a scary thought. We have been successful at slowing down the speed of light by changing the medium that it travels through and by other methods, and this suggests that it would be also possible to slow down those virtual photons that flow in a magnetic field of flux simply by allowing those virtual photons to flow through a medium that slows it down, which implies we currently have the technology to do this. Anyone up for this experiment? I am currently unemployed and do not have the financial means to do this experiment, although I do not think it would cost very much. The cost would be a small electric motor, generator or used car alternator and the medium that slows light. Simply place the material in the magnetic field of flux and watch in amazement. Then give me some money so I can pay my child support and give me my nobel prize. Another option for the medium would be a really thick 2 way mirror, but I don't know if the 2 way mirror would slow the speed of light or not. If this idea is correct and the virtual photons get slowed down enough so it is delivered in a quanta, then it would be similar to pulsing an electromagnet. This is free, easy to reproduce, cheap to build, open sourced, clean, and unlimited energy. It doesn't get any better than this..
A brief side note about these virtual photons and other virtual particles. It could be that these virtual particles are either traveling faster than the speed of light or is being delivered in a continuous flow and not in quanta (possibly both could be correct). There are a few reasons that I base this idea on. The first observation is light cannot escape a black hole but virtual photons (virtual particles) can. Since black holes have a magnetic field, and it can get out, this seems to imply that virtual photons (flux) can travel faster than the speed of light! The second observation is the permanent magnet needs to constantly change its position so it won't cut the flow of electrons along a conductor, and this suggests that the virtual photons are either traveling faster than light or being delivered continuously.
Once we understand what we currently know, then we will have unlimited energy available to us without violating the laws of nature. When I look at the universe, I see it as a perpetual motion machine. It is always converting and exchanging energy. Nature does not violate its own laws, but here we are, waiting to be recycled so nature can continue to exist.
Please read the previous post that was made by me (reply #72). It is very important and could lead to free unlimited energy.
We may need to redefine physics:
We may be able to add virtual photons to the list of the electromagnetic spectrum (virtual photons, gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet rays, visible light, infrared, and radio waves). This may also destroy the wave-particle duality theory of physics. Faster than light speed travel is also suggested (possibly 100's of magnitude faster). I am not sure if the virtual photon is a real photon which travels faster than the speed of light or if the virtual photon is actually a wave and not an elementary particle (photon). I am not sure when a photon strikes a metal surface that causes an electron to be ejected is caused by the actual photon itself or is caused by the wave, or possibly both are responsible for the ejection of an electron. It is currently believed that a photon has a wavefront and this wave may be just a wave or is made of photons that are moving faster than light. We will soon know the truth. My best guess would be that it is an actual photon and not a wave. Either way, photon or wave, the previous post should lead to free unlimited energy if we succeed in slowing it down.
The properties of a virtual photon and virtual particles are this:
Wavelength = 0
Frequency = Infinite or continuous
Time = 0 (this is my best guess)
It will be so easy that a child could build a spacecraft (ufo) that travels 100's or maybe even 1000's of times faster than the speed of light, but I will not disclose how at this moment, although most will figure this out on their own with a little thought and known configurations such as the circular shape and landing gears of ufo's.
@gravityblock,
Yaaaayyy! Someone who's at the same stage in this process as me. After years of frustration at trying the shot in the dark approach, building things and hoping they tap into something, I started to look for some help from physics. For ZPE that means doing exactly what you're talking about. What are virtual photons? How can their energy be tapped? To the conventional ivory tower physicist they're homogeneous and isotropic (moving in every direction, the same magnitude in every direction.) To mathematical physicists they're just probability waves. Here's an excellent link for this school of thought:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html
However, the Casimir effect proves there's something real and potentially tapable there.
But does the standard model describe it in an engineerable way? Maybe. But this popping in and out of existence thing made me look for a model that described it in a more concrete way. Or as you said in your last post "We may need to redefine physics". Though I wouldn't through out the old. It's done a lot for us thus far. So after looking around, I stumbled on the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) model:
http://wsminfo.org/articles/GREIT6Oct06.doc
http://wsminfo.org
http://www.quantummatter.com/
In this model, instead of virtual photons, we have waves that travel through space from particle to particle. In between the particles, this would definately appear as a boiling sea of random waves. It's a fairly young and incomplete model; there's a lot of work to be done on it, and I'll admit that someday it may hit some really big roadblock that'll kill it. So far so good though.
I'm still learning the WSM and haven't found any way of engineering with it yet. But at least thinking in terms of waves makes a difference. However, a rough idea I have, not based on any math yet, is that maybe some of these alleged devices, including ones putting out excess energy with plasma, is that they are creating charged particles, possibly short lived, on the fly by the way the devices manipulate electric fields (which in WSM-speak means they are manipulating these fundamental waves.) The idea is that some of the energy for the creation of these charged particles would come from the waves. The end result is voltage and charged particles (current) for less energy than was put in. Specifically I see this possibility with the Hyde generator, which I'm currently building, and the testatika, which I've been working on since 2005 and which may be doing exactly what the Hyde generator may be doing:
http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/testa/testatika_and_hyde_generator.htm
More specifically, in WSM, particles don't have tiny discrete particles at their center. Instead they are resonances in space that have position, motion, charge, ... All particles resonate with all other particles, the nearer ones having more effect of course. Spherically shaped waves, called in-waves, collapse on the particle center (well, sort of... see Huygen's principle for something more accurate), wherein they are spherically rotated 720 degrees and sent back out as new spherical waves, called out-waves. These out-waves are the in-waves of other particles and so on... This back and forth, and something else that goes on at the non-linear particle center called the Minimum Amplitude Principle (MAP), is what causes the resonance and thus the sustained existance (to my understanding so far.) The 720 degree spherical rotation is necessary in the model since particles are observed to have angular momentum, called spin.
So to create a particle we'd need to dynamically manipulate the electric fields, really the waves we are talking about, in such a way that we cause spin, which I hope (lot's of hand waving here) results in new charged particles, giving rise to somewhat free voltage and current. Also note, at no time was energy created, COE&M were respected.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
I decided to delete this post. I know it makes you wonder what was posted and I can assure you that it didn't contain any additional information about this technology. All the information that is needed for free unlimited energy and the other technologies that can be developed from it is in this thread (Post # 72 and # 73).
I will soon try to post a theory on everything that unites all the forces in a way that the average person can understand it. I expected to have more responses to what I have previously posted. Due to the low replies I suppose you all think i'm talking out of my head.
@ Steven Dufresne
I really like that theory......waves, in such a way that it acts like a particle.....cool...
I don't get this fully but i am working on getting my head around it.....the in and out waves are phase conjugates right? and form the electron shells right?
"At the center, spherical rotation* changes in-waves to out-waves."
so is the spin rectifying incoming waves somehow?
could you couple with the waves maybe throw them out of phase with eachother?
also how would they move-- I'm thinking of the Doppler effect....
@ Pyrodin & Dufresne,
Waves behaving like a particle is NOT a theory but a proven fact. This was first demonstrated by Professor Peter Guthrie Tait (1831 - 1901) who was a Scottish mathematical physicist, best known for the seminal energy physics textbook Treatise on Natural Philosophy, which he co-wrote with Kelvin.
Professor Tait came up with the vortex machine which is essentially a simple closed container with a hole in one side that is filled with smoke. On tapping the side opposite the hole, rotating smoke rings form outside the hole that have peculiar properties.
I am borrowing here a slide shown by Professor Samuel J. Lomonaco, lecturing
at a Short Course on Knots & Physics held at the Annual Meeting of the American Mathematical Society in San Francisco, California, January, 1995.
The slide contains comments Professor Tait made when demonstrating the device. It might give you a few ideas.
I am currently writing a paper on this and related phenomena which I intend to publish here in about a month time.
Hans von Lieven
Does time have mass? No.
Does time have velocity? No.
Does time have any physical properties? No.
So how can time that does not have any physical properties cause things with physical properties to change?
The answer is it can not.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 09, 2009, 12:01:47 AM
so....time is like a cloud that is drawn in with gravity and mass the more gravity you experience the more time you pass through....right?
mass bunches up time around it? So here's an idea..... would gravity have a refracting ability? like surface tension on water? would time stretch out thinner and thinner or is there a specific time density for outerspace? hard to describe, say you have a certain amount of particles for a given area, to have a cluster you would pull in the surrounding particles so, the density would change from static density to low density to high density.....am i making any sense?
Gravity (aka magnetism) has the capability to warp space and time. For example, the sun's powerful magnetic field actually bends light(refraction) around it allowing us to observe planets that would normally be out of view.
You are making sense about density and the proper term is 'time dilation'.
Both magnetic properties stated here are scientific fact.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 12, 2009, 03:38:20 PM
I really like that theory......waves, in such a way that it acts like a particle.....cool...
I don't get this fully but i am working on getting my head around it.....the in and out waves are phase conjugates right?
I'm not sure I understand phase conjugation well enough to answer. I think the answer is no. The spherical rotation at the center causes the in-wave to be phase shifted 180 degrees and sent back out the direction it came from such that the sum of the amplitude results in a scalar/standing wave. There's an animation showing the two waves and the resulting scalar wave at:
http://www.quantummatter.com/articles/see_an_electron.html
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 12, 2009, 03:38:20 PM
and form the electron shells right?
Do you mean electron shells in terms of energy levels? Not a lot of work has been done yet on electrons as parts of atoms so I can't answer this.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 12, 2009, 03:38:20 PM
"At the center, spherical rotation* changes in-waves to out-waves."
so is the spin rectifying incoming waves somehow?
Yes. The spherical rotation that goes on at the center serves a few purposes. One is to satisfy the experimentally observed angular momentum, well described by Dirac as a spherical rotation of 720 degrees. Another is to send the in-wave back the direction it came from as an out-wave. And it also provides a high amplitude non-linear area so that an energy exchange can take place, something that doesn't happen in the linear space between the particles.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 12, 2009, 03:38:20 PM
could you couple with the waves maybe throw them out of phase with eachother?
also how would they move-- I'm thinking of the Doppler effect....
Charged particles move around with respect to each other due to something called MAP, the Minimum Amplitude Principle. This says that the total amplitude of all waves in space seek a minimum. But this only takes effect in the non-linear area near the particle center.
But I don't want to hijack gravityblock's thread so if you want more details we can move to a new thread or have a look at the articles at http://wsminfo.org and http://www.quantummatter.com. http://wsminfo.org/articles/GREIT6Oct06.doc would probably be a good starting point. I would certainly like to discuss engineering possibilities for these waves to tap into their energy.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 12, 2009, 03:56:17 PM
Professor Tait came up with the vortex machine which is essentially a simple closed container with a hole in one side that is filled with smoke. On tapping the side opposite the hole, rotating smoke rings form outside the hole that have peculiar properties.
Hans,
Sounds like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVzFWprbMkA&feature=related
Also reminds me of Ken Shoulders' charge clusters which I think are supposed to be toroidal in shape.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
G'day Steve,
Yes , the video shows the same as Professor Tait's shoebox albeit in a more dramatic manner. Love the size of the smoke-rings.
What is interesting here is that the smoke-ring, the result of a pressure wave traveling through a resonant cavity, behaves more like a solid than a wave.
In fact it shapes the medium around it.
Fascinating and far reaching stuff.
Hans von Lieven
Here's a video of dolphins playing and blowing bubble rings in the water similar to the smoke rings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q)
Quote from: brian334 on January 12, 2009, 04:19:02 PM
Does time have mass? No.
Does time have velocity? No.
Does time have any physical properties? No.
So how can time that does not have any physical properties cause things with physical properties to change?
The answer is it can not.
Blackholes destroy or removes space, energy, and matter from time. and inside the blackhole time creates space, mass, and energy within itself (other universes) . A permanent magnet is similar to a blackhole if not the same. You can either destroy or remove some of the "time", which creates space, energy, and particles (matter) or you can remove space, matter, and energy to create time.
You can either destroy or remove time to create a space within it or destroy the space to create time.
I am only using the word "destroy" for understanding purposes only. You can either convert time into space, or you can convert the space into time. This is what causes gravity. Gravity is the fluctuations of space within time or the fluctuations of time within space. Physics did get a few things right, although had to reword it differently for a better understanding.
Does time have mass? No.
Does time have velocity? Yes, it is a continuous (infinite) flow of time similar to a permanent magnet and has
no space or mass within the magnetic field of flux. Light has a finite speed because the time is being delivered in packets,
has space between the packets because it is not continuous flow of time. A permanent magnet has the property of a continuous flow of time and there are no space (no mass) or breaks in the time. Thus it stops or blocks the flow of electrons along a conductor unless you keep moving the magnet. If you could add enough space or remove time in this continuous flow of energy (time) that is flowing within the magnetic field of flux (no space or mass), then it wouldn't cut the flow of electrons along the conductor as long as it was being delivered at or slower than the current flow. There is no space or mass within the magnetic field of flux.
Does time have any physical properties? Infinite Time is totally aware of itself and knows it has no physical properties, so it takes away from itself, which causes a break or a space in its flow, and this space is what we know to be in the physical world. If it allowed the break to be a longer duration, then their would be more space between time. In the beginning of creation, which has no beginning or end, there is no space or mass between time and time is aware of this, so it generates space or mass by varying the duration or the frequency between this time, and in this physical world we see this as the frequencies of the electromagnet spectrum, which is known to us as energy, and is also responsible for all of the energy and matter we have in this physical world. The more energy or mass that is present within a given space the less time that is available to it, so it is not as aware of its existence, and when it reaches an infinite mass, then it has no time, and since it has no time, then it destroys itself and we see this destruction in the formation of a black hole, and after it destroys itself, then it starts (the black hole will remove all space from time and once all of the space has been destroyed, then it will have infinite time, and then creates another universe. Infinite mass/energy destroys itself and Infinite time creates mass and energy. If you really study and try to wrap your mind around this concept, then you will understand it, and know who your creator is and the creator is totally aware of everything, and you can rest assured that you are loved, because out of infinite time comes love and all goodness.
This is the theory of everything, and everything comes out of the fluctuations of space and time. Since Time (God) has no beginning or end we should say everything comes out of time or God. God is the greatest mathematician and engineerer ever to be. Spiritual things are time, life, your awareness of yourself
and of others and physical things are mass, energy, and space. When we lose are physical body we will become totally aware of ourselves and have infinite time, this is what most of the popular religions says and now it is proven with physics and science . Please do not murder yourself or others, for by doing so, you may destroy your own lifeforce or the lifeforce of others. I am not sure on this though, so don't take the chance. According to the bible this will lead to your own destruction. The bible refers of 2 different types of death, a physical death and a spiritual death. The books of the bible was given to us by God, and we all need to read it so we won't destroy our spiritual self, which is not existing in the physical form or the spiritual form.
If your not understanding this, then try to change your frame of reference to the creator or the universe. We've been looking at this from our frame of reference and we need to apply relativity to this.
Does infinite time have life? Yes
Does infinite mass/energy have life? No
For those who understand this, please try to help me put this in words so we may all have this understanding. This will unite all religions and sciences. Once you re-read the first chapter of the book of Genesis and apply this knowledge to it, you will know that God is real and that he knows each and every one of us, and we will know him also.
I started a new thread in the half baked section titled "The theory of everything" and it includes additional information. Please post your comments of this theory to the new thread. Thanks
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6559.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6559.0)
@Steven Dufresne-Thanks for the explanation, ;D i watched your video with the cork and the strings, very cool trick..
i still need to do more research.....
how does a wave come in at all directions though? some sort of pressure wave, like being underwater and the pressure keeps going up and down?
ps: thought this was very interesting-can't get over it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJk8ijAUCiI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJk8ijAUCiI)
@gravity
Hmmm....I am under the impression (right now anyways) that matter is a set of 2 or more waves (in what I'm not sure-time maybe) and it says in El bible that god 'SPOKE' and it was...now sound is a wave, so maybe god is not time but outside time and his voice is what is powering the whole shabang....time, atoms and the universe....I keep my mind open to new possibilities though...
on the other hand trying to figure out god and how he (or she or it) fits into the picture is kinda too big for me and can only help muddy the water, when we figure out how the universe and the atom, works, then we can address how god(or the divine force or whatever) did it....for now I'm content not understanding god so much, rather his beautiful work.
Not that I'm saying god isn't good and all, its just not practical.
Bringing God into any equation is an illogical means to an incorrect solution....1+2+God=X ;D
ps: are you a mason? just curious....
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 14, 2009, 11:07:29 AM
@Steven Dufresne-Thanks for the explanation, ;D i watched your video with the cork and the strings, very cool trick..
You can imagine the twisting going on in my mind too as I had hours of fun trying to follow it.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 14, 2009, 11:07:29 AM
i still need to do more research.....
how does a wave come in at all directions though? some sort of pressure wave, like being underwater and the pressure keeps going up and down?
Good question. The answer is, it doesn't. ;D That's where Huygen's principle comes in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens_principle
See the attached animation I made a few months ago. It's a whole bunch of expanding circular waves and the resulting collapsing circular wavefront in the middle. Spherical waves involve simply adding a 3rd dimension. (IGNORE THE DOT AT THE CENTER; IT SHOULDN'T BE THERE! No discrete particles at the center in WSM :)) So only a small portion of the out-wave of one particle interacts with and returns from another particle.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 14, 2009, 11:07:29 AM
ps: thought this was very interesting-can't get over it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJk8ijAUCiI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJk8ijAUCiI)
Very cool! You'll like this one too:
http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=sY6z2hLgYuY
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
@ Steven Dufresne-WOW...that video was cool! i really like resonance and cymatics...
still trying to wrap my head around the rest.. ???...I do some more thinking tonight......thanks for answering my questions....even though it just make me have more!! ;D
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on January 14, 2009, 11:42:04 AM
@gravity
ps: are you a mason? just curious....
Am I a mason? No, but I will now reveal the secret to what I believe to be unlimited energy for us and unlimited life for us. This may also be their secret but they do not fully understand it, use it properly, or want us to know for all to benefit. I do not know their secret, but I believe this is the secret to the universes and to life or death depending on which way we want things to be (either good or bad for all and not just for a select few who do not know how to use it for the benefit of all).
A pure wave is 100% time or energy with no space or mass (no particle). Less than 100% time becomes a wave with a particle
A pure particle is 100% mass with no wave and no time. Less than 100% mass becomes a particle with a wave.
Everything else between a pure particle and a pure wave is the electromagnetic spectrum. A pure wave is a virtual photon with no space or particle available . A pure particle is with no time or space available.
I have this idea about permanent magnets. If we think of a permanent magnet as being our infinity for energy (The North Pole, Positive, Time or destroyer) and also think of it as being the infinity for zero point energy (The South Pole, Negative, Space or creator) then we may be able to create energy (begin an infinity) and destroy energy (end the infinity we created) which would create an infinity between it which would allow us to capture this infinity between the two infinities. Does this make sense? lol
We have been trying to get overunity from within our infinity and this is not possible (only allowed to convert and then we would need to wait again until it is converted to a form we can use again)
What if we tried to convert the energy into electricity that would make up our infinity from outside of our infinity. Wouldn't this allow us to use the infinity of us and then destroy the infinity as we normally do by converting it to energy . The energy that was converted would then be available to infinity of us again.
It may be that a permanent magnet is similar to a black hole. The event horizon representing the end of one infinity and beyond the event horizon representing the beginning of another infinity. Is this not creating and destroying the infinities? The black hole destroys (converts) all space, matter, and energy which creates (converts) more time before or at the event horizon with only time passing through it to the next infinity. Beyond the event horizon is infinite time with no space, matter, and energy which will later create (convert) time into space, particles and mass after it had time to cool.
Lets say you have a permanent magnet similar to the shape of a circular ufo. The topside of this ufo (the north pole, positive, destroyer of our universe) would be considered the amount of energy available to us or would be considered the destroyer of our infinity or universe. Now moving from the topside to the center would be our iron coil of wire and this would represent our universe infinity that we will destroy and the infinity that we will create . This coil of wire would be considered the event horizon or the creator and destroyer of the infinities that we will destroy and create. Now moving from the center to the bottom side of this ufo (the south pole, positive, creator of the new infinity) would represent the infinity that we just created. We would then destroy the infinity that we just created in the form of electromagnetic waves which gives back to the infinity that we took this energy from and will propel our ufo through space. Now you would need three of these coils for control and direction of flight. This would allow us to continue taking from our infinity as long as we keep giving back to our infinity. Our infinity doesn't lose or gain anything, it will just be converting energy for us, but we will not be able to obtain more energy from the infinity that we created and destroyed than our infinity that created it. We would not be destroying our infinity, just creating and destroying another infinity for our energy.
We would need to be inside this permanent magnet (inside the coil of wire) and the permanent magnet will need to totally enclose the iron coil of wire except for the 3 outlets for the electromagnetic waves. This would be like converting the energy from inside the permanent magnet instead of outside the permanent magnet as we are doing now.
This would be like opening (creating) and closing (destroying) a wormhole to travel through or for electricity. A wormhole is a blackhole moving at incredible speeds (through more time and less space) or generating incredible amounts of energy for electricity.
If your the creator and the destroyer of your universe or infinity, then you can be in the beginning and also be in the end of your universe or infinity. If your inside your infinity, then you can never get to the beginning or the end of your infinity or universe.
Will this work? I believe this is how the universes and ufo's work and it should work for us too. (This is the theory of everything) This can be applied to all aspects of life within our universe or infinity which can lead to the benefit of all if all uses it properly (life) or to the destruction of our universe or planet (death) if it is misused which is what we're doing now to our planet and to ourselves. Let's all choose a better life and choose life over death. Let's all give the glory to God and not to satan. Let's destroy satan, have a great life, have a no end, and give all glory to our God.
It's time for a renewal, it's time for an awakening, it's time for the ascension into the heavens, it's time for the rapture, it's time for Armageddon, it's time to put an end to this system of things, it's time to be with our God forever and ever, it's time to make your decision, what side you will fight for. What side do you choose, Good or evil (life or death)?
Are you ready? You need to make your decision now.
This technology already exists and has existed for quiet some time now. It will soon be given to us. We must realize this will not lead to our spiritual life. This technology will lead to our physical and spiritual death. They will force us to take the mark of the beast in order to receive the technology for unlimited energy and for our physical ascension into the heavens.
Although this will give us the ability to physically ascend into the heavens and have unlimited free energy, it will not allow us to spiritually ascend into the heavens to live forever and ever with our true God. They will force us to take the mark in order to buy or sell, etc. If we do not take the mark, they will either kill us in the physical body or not allow us to buy and sell, etc and this will lead to our physical death but not our spiritual death. This is our tree of knowledge, knowing good and evil. This technology may bring a temporary peace in the world, but this temporary peace will last only for a short time and this will surely cause you to die physically and spiritually.
We must have faith and believe in our true God and not take the mark of the beast. If we do not accept this mark or the technology then we will have eternal life in the spiritual form and live forever and ever with our true God (this is our tree of life).
If magnetic fields can stress space?(someone help me here),Then maybe a big fat Marco Rodin Coil that a person can stand in the center of would slow down the flow of time in the center of the coil? Remember a rodin coil converts DC current into a rotating magnetic field .If time flow is slowed down(in the center of the coil where the magnetic forces are the strongest).Then I have found what I have been looking for since 1984.Triffid
I vaguely rember reading a text about two torus shaped coils of diff size having weird effects maybe somebody knows where that is....anyways....
two rodin coils would be interesting but way too much coiling for me to take on
Gravity Tensor Fields are very much like Electromagnetic Tensor Fields, Also just as Light has a Rainbow so does Gravity Fields, you can see this Gravitational Bow by studying the Planet Saturn, The Gravitational Bow has different frequencies in accordance to it inner or outer Orbital Tensor Shell or Tensor Field.
Rainbows are actually circular but with Gravitational Bows it is dependent on the density of the mass causing the Gravitational Tensor Field shells. you can see the different density fluctuations from Gravity Maps, Planets like Saturn usually have uniformed Gravitational Tensor fields because the Density doesn't have a lot of dramatic changes because of it containing most Gases so Saturn's Orbital Tensor shells will be more circular in nature than those of huge rocky type planets where densities can change by large degrees over its terrain.
Jerry ;)
Gravity seems to work one way in nature and that is in attraction mode only.
Let's say all atoms emit electromagnetic and gravity waves. The electromagnetic waves propagate through space in all directions in a corkscrew motion. The gravity waves are propagating through space in all directions in a helical motion.
The gravity waves emitted by an atom will cause another atom to have the same spin at a distance due to the helical motion of the waves. This same spin of the atoms causes the attraction or sucking motion of the two atoms and is known to us as gravity.
Since gravity is acting on the individual atoms and not on the entire mass, then this supports why all objects will fall to the earth at the same rate regardless of it's mass. It also supports that a larger mass will have more gravity since there would be more atoms in the mass sending out helical waves.
If we can learn to manipulate or block these helical waves, then we may have anti-gravity and OU.
Not sure if this is helpful or not, but it sounds good. LOL
Just a thought.
Hi gravityblock.
If you look at this Gravity Map of the Earth you will see that Gravity is not uniformed on Earths surface, if an object is dropped at the top of the Andes mountains and a copy of that object dropped in the middle of the Indian ocean the object dropped at the top of the Andes will hit the ground first because the Andes has the strongest Gravitational influence.
now if those two objects were dropped locally together in the same Gravity field density then they would hit the ground at the same time.
in the Gravity map below Red is strongest gravity and dark blue is the weakest gravity.
Mining in the Red areas would be rich in heavy metals possibly even some gold and such. mostly granite though I would assume.
Jerry ;)
WHERE did you get that map, very cool...
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 17, 2009, 04:59:18 AM
Hi gravityblock.
If you look at this Gravity Map of the Earth you will see that Gravity is not uniformed on Earths surface, if an object is dropped at the top of the Andes mountains and a copy of that object dropped in the middle of the Indian ocean the object dropped at the top of the Andes will hit the ground first because the Andes has the strongest Gravitational influence.
now if those two objects were dropped locally together in the same Gravity field density then they would hit the ground at the same time.
in the Gravity map below Red is strongest gravity and dark blue is the weakest gravity.
Mining in the Red areas would be rich in heavy metals possibly even some gold and such. mostly granite though I would assume.
Jerry ;)
Very nice.
The atoms in the Indian ocean has a different mass than the atoms in the Andes on average, so the strength of those gravity waves would be different cause of the difference in mass locally and cause objects to fall at different rates.
Since you mentioned the various types of elements that could be mined in the Red Sea, suggests you realize that the individual atoms plays the major role in gravity locally instead of the entire mass of an object having the dominant role.
This is what I suspected and hope I am not misinterpreting what you said.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on June 17, 2009, 10:03:14 AM
WHERE did you get that map, very cool...
Hi Pyro.
The Gravity map is from the Satellite called GRACE.
here is some info about GRACE.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s911917.htm
you can do some google searches for the satellite which will give you more info.
Jerry
Quote from: gravityblock on June 17, 2009, 01:11:30 PM
Hi gravityblock
Quote
Very nice.
Thank GRACE, it is her master piece, I just showed it off for her.
Quote
The atoms in the Indian ocean has a different mass than the atoms in the Andes on average, so the strength of those gravity waves would be different cause of the difference in mass locally and cause objects to fall at different rates.
correct, but things can change with temperature(Tc) and the type of particle and or Atomic electron orbitals, for instance BEC or Bose Einstein Condensates act as a Single lump of Mass that no longer has self identification, they act as a mass singularity like they are one and not many.
Quote
Since you mentioned the various types of elements that could be mined in the Red Sea, suggests you realize that the individual atoms plays the major role in gravity locally instead of the entire mass of an object having the dominant role.
you are correct but read the above paragraph.
Quote
This is what I suspected and hope I am not misinterpreting what you said.
Pretty much clear as long as you understand that the environment of said Matter can change it's properties and not be the same scientifically under different environments. for instance, Iron is Ferromagnetic on Earth but is not Ferromagnetic on Venus due to Curie Temperature and so forth. Density of Mass has the largest role in the Gravitational Tensor Field Density, the denser an object the more it displaces time and space.
Jerry ;)
Has anyone done any research into the newly found matter of Quasi-crystals and could this be beneficial to OU?
The Quasi-crystals are said to be in a state between glass and crystals.
http://goldennumber.net/quasicrystal.htm
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/04/quasicrystal-nature.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasicrystal
http://www.jcrystal.com/steffenweber/qc.html
Quasicrystal Research Ames Laboratory, US DOE - http://www.mcbmm.ameslab.gov/matchem_growth.htm
Thanks again,
GB
Note: I accidentally double posted, so I thought the information on the Quasi-crystals would be better than duplicate content and is interesting.
Hi, guys
I'm new here. Very interesting talk you're having here
(it cost me almost all day, but it was worth it)
I don't know if there's a special presentation page, but I just wanted to share this:
Found it some time ago on the web.
If I find the time tomorrow, I'll present an idea in the half-baked idea section for a combined
permanent- and electromagnet generator. I would really like some comments on this
since it seems I have found some people that know where I'm talking about at last...
I'll be reading a lot the coming days. Thanks, guys for creating this forum, you'll be reading
from me, Peter
Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 13, 2009, 01:54:55 AM
G'day Steve,
Yes , the video shows the same as Professor Tait's shoebox albeit in a more dramatic manner. Love the size of the smoke-rings.
What is interesting here is that the smoke-ring, the result of a pressure wave traveling through a resonant cavity, behaves more like a solid than a wave.
In fact it shapes the medium around it.
Fascinating and far reaching stuff.
Hans von Lieven
In the past couple of days, I have been reading your website on Keely. I was not aware that this overlapped into the area of what appears to be your lifetime study of harmonics, resonance, waves, and such.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on November 25, 2008, 05:31:30 AM
Photons, and everything else, like planets, try to go where time is least. Gravity curves spacetime because the photons or anything that has mass are seeking or are pulled toward a path of least time, which is a path of more gravity. Physicists have proven with atomic clocks and satellites that gravity slows time. Clocks run slower at lower altitudes where gravity is stronger. Time is least (flows more slowly) where gravity is most.
The earth orbiting the sun has momentum which keeps it in orbit. If the earth's momentum were to stop, the earth would seek the path of least time, and be pulled straight into the sun! It would not follow a curved path to the sun if it does not have momentum.
1) Mass causes gravity.
2) Mass seeks or is pulled where time is least.
3) The larger the mass, the least time is.
4) spacetime is curved to the curvature of the mass.
5) Without mass, time is not curved.
6) Without momentum near a mass, space is not curved.
Einstein said as you approach the speed light time slows down and mass increases. This also holds true for a black hole, because of its mass, time slows as one accelerates toward the event horizon and time stops at the event horizon. The reason why time slows down as you approach the speed of light is because the mass increases(More mass means less time). The question I have is why does mass slow time, or is my thinking curved also, lol?
Hi GravityBlock.
is there something else I can call you?
I wanted to express why an object seeks the path of least resistance, it's called the conservation of matter and energy, it is what makes perpetual motion impossible, Matter is Lazy by Nature unless it is an unstable Isotope which generally comes in different flavors of radioactive properties. but even they have half lives, the least amount of half life the more dangerous it is per category of radioactive classification.
I may be an Atheist, I believe in only Science and Physics and observed facts, I say, I will never neglect your faith in a God no matter how much it doesn't make sense. really, your God is like a Science to me, if the One God exposes him or her self to me I will study with all my hearts content. whether they are truly Godly or truly Alien by nature. I know by the laws of nature that we as a race are 1 in 1 billionth in univeral intelligence, how far up that level is what God is? just so you know, it is possible for a race of beings to know everything just like God. if you don't believe me then shame on you and not your God because that is the way things work.
Jerry
Hi GravityBlocker.
When you are admonished with trying to explain your God, I will reveal something no other person has known, not even religious even thought I could make it so. they may say so but there has never been another. do you know that the future is true and the past is true but the present is not, can you figure that one out.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 17, 2009, 11:35:47 PM
Hi GravityBlocker.
When you are admonished with trying to explain your God, I will reveal something no other person has known, not even religious even thought I could make it so. they may say so but there has never been another. do you know that the future is true and the past is true but the present is not, can you figure that one out.
You can call me GB if you like.
The last post I mentioned about God in this thread was 6 months ago. This is when the thread died. This is not the place for it, but I lose my mind from time to time.
Maybe you will be so kind to share with us this answer along with revealing something that no other person has known, and save me a lot of wasted time following mis-truths, half-truths, misinformation, etc. and losing half of my sanity in the process of the OU quest.
I have a feeling what you may reveal, is going to try and deny the existence of God. Although you said you wasn't going to make it religious, so this will be interesting if you decide to reveal it. If you must, then say what you have to say. I will try to hold my tongue, but I can make no promises.
You have a right to express your thoughts as I have. So don't hold back. I will give you the same respect as you have given me.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 17, 2009, 11:14:48 PM
Hi GravityBlock.
I wanted to express why an object seeks the path of least resistance, it's called the conservation of matter and energy, it is what makes perpetual motion impossible, Matter is Lazy by Nature unless it is an unstable Isotope which generally comes in different flavors of radioactive properties. but even they have half lives, the least amount of half life the more dangerous it is per category of radioactive classification.
Jerry
Why can't the path of least resistance be where time is least? If time causes particles and matter to experience resistance, then wouldn't the particles go where time is least, which would be the path of least resistance? If not, then please tell me what is the path of least resistance for the particles and matter instead of stating this without defining what the path of least resistance is. All you have done is quoted from the physics books without even considering what the path of least resistance may be.
I won't accept that the mass of an object is the path of least resistance for another mass that is approaching, which is total nonsense. Mass takes time away or converts time into a force or energy from the vacuum of space in and around it's vicinity and this is what holds the mass together and what is responsible for the space-time curvature. This is also true for what is holding the individual atoms together. Thus an approaching object will follow towards the larger mass due to less time in the vicinity of the mass that was taken away by the mass in order to hold the mass together, which would be less resistance.
Why won't people even consider that Time may be gravity and that Space may be an abundance of Time? Nobody can fully grasp time and nobody can fully grasp gravity. Maybe Space, Time, and Gravity are all the same. At least entertain the notion.
The Conservation of Matter and Energy <---- Always being thrown at OU and to say something is impossible. This is the statement used when physics has no other answer. LOL
The impossible is proven to be possible time after time in physics and in many cases without even needing to change or modify the theory or law that said it was impossible to begin with.I refuse to believe that perpetual motion is impossible. The entire universe is in perpetual motion.
Physics said the Quasi-crystal was impossible, but is now proven.
Airplanes were said to be impossible to fly at one time.
Physics at one point couldn't understand how the bumble bee could fly.
Just because something is believed to be impossible with the current ideas of the time, doesn't mean it is impossible.
Sorry GB, I got smashed last night and I apologize for saying some things that I shouldn't of expressed.
Jerry
Hi GB.
we have the same initials, GB.
Conservation of matter and energy is caused by "Forces", Forces such as inertia, friction, field friction, gravity, all Forces equal out their remaining stored energy and come to rest when depleted, it is a force's job to equalize energy and make it come to rest. if you can take away all Forces then yes, perpetual motion is a possibility. but without forces how would one interact with that something? catch 22.
in space you can take a gyro, not spun up but just floating in space, it has no given energy to do work and just floats there, now spin it and it will store that energy as kinetic energy, it will spin a very long time because of the lack of forces acting on it but it will not spin forever because there are micro forces acting on it that will potentially equal out its kinetic energy and eventually it will come to rest after a long time.
the problem most people make is trying to get "Forces" to do work without putting energy into the system, Forces are only carriers of energy and store that energy, when the energy is depleted by the carrier force it will come to rest.
Conservation of matter and energy is the applied "Unified Forces" acting on everything. don't confuse force with energy, forces don't like to do work that's what they are there for and only do work when energy is applied.
Nuclear Energy is a type of OU so long as you have fuel to keep the chain reaction going especially Fusion Energy. it releases 30,000,000 times more energy than it took to make the fuel but nobody likes this form of energy because of it being dirty, fusion energy is the cleanest OU known to Science & Physics if the correct fuel is used, if the wrong fuel mixture is used in fusion it can release lots of Neutrons and that is bad, that's what makes the Neutron Bomb possible.
Can't fool Mother Nature.
Jerry
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 18, 2009, 09:10:30 AM
Conservation of matter and energy is caused by "Forces", Forces such as inertia, friction, field friction, gravity, all Forces equal out their remaining stored energy and come to rest when depleted, it is a force's job to equalize energy and make it come to rest. if you can take away all Forces then yes, perpetual motion is a possibility. but without forces how would one interact with that something? catch 22.
No need to take away all forces. Only need to take away a small percentage, maybe up to 50%. If you are being pushed on equally from all directions, then you will have no movement in any direction due to this force. If you are being pushed on from the front and not the back, then you will move in the direction with the push, since no force is behind you to counter the force in front. So, there is no catch 22 as I see it.
The mistake that is made is to think we don't have enough energy and that the forces can't do work. The fact is we have too much energy or the forces are equalized, and we need to take away some of this force or cause an imbalance in the system in order for it to do work.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 18, 2009, 09:10:30 AM
in space you can take a gyro, not spun up but just floating in space, it has no given energy to do work and just floats there, now spin it and it will store that energy as kinetic energy, it will spin a very long time because of the lack of forces acting on it but it will not spin forever because there are micro forces acting on it that will potentially equal out its kinetic energy and eventually it will come to rest after a long time.
the problem most people make is trying to get "Forces" to do work without putting energy into the system, Forces are only carriers of energy and store that energy, when the energy is depleted by the carrier force it will come to rest.
At one point in history, according to my history books, the earth was spinning much faster on it's axis. There was 18 hours in a day instead of the now 24 hours in a day, and the leap year was every 5 years instead of the now every 4 years.
This suggest that the axial spin of the earth is slowing and the orbital path is closer to the sun. In addition to this, there is an orbital momentum that keeps it in it's current orbit. Without the orbital momentum, it would plunge straight into the sun. So, there is no lose of energy due to the forces acting upon it, only a conversion of energy between the different spin momentums. The orbital momentum is actually a linear momentum that is being pulled on from one side, an unidirectional force known as gravity capable of doing work with no energy put into it, that causes it to follow a curved or orbital path, that causes it to have an axial spin momentum.
In the meantime, the gravity of the sun is doing work in being able to pull an object into itself, because that force is acting on the object from one side and the forces are not equalized around the object that is being pulled.
I do not think energy needs to be put into a system for a force to be able to do work. Instead some of the forces need to be taken away or to cause an imbalance in the system to allow work to be done.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 18, 2009, 09:10:30 AM
Conservation of matter and energy is the applied "Unified Forces" acting on everything. don't confuse force with energy, forces don't like to do work that's what they are there for and only do work when energy is applied.
Energy is never really defined in physics, so what does the Conservation of Matter and Energy really means when energy is not defined or defined correctly? Energy is an imbalance of the forces involved which allows work to be done. A force is capable of doing work if there is not an equal force countering it. There is no need for energy to be applied in order for a force to do work, and this is evident with gravity since the force is acting on an object with an unidirectional force and doing work in bringing the masses together without energy being applied to accomplish this. Over Unity is very real and possible with an unidirectional force such as gravity without needing to change the current acceptable theories or laws in physics.
The only reason why you and the rest of physics thinks energy needs to be applied in order for work to be done, is because the energy that is applied is a method of causing an imbalance in the forces that are equalized, and doesn't mean it is the only method. Nature seems to do it very well with gravity without an external energy source being applied. Don't make this any more difficult than it needs to be.
Cheers,
GB
Hi GB.
all the planetary bodies orbiting the Sun are using up their 'stored' energy, when that energy approaches Zero their orbits will fall closer into the sun and eventually they will burn up when they get to close and at some point will be destroyed. its energy will now be absorbed by the Sun.
it requires energy of some kind to give or remove energy from a system, for instance; Gadolinium is strongly paramagnetic at room temperature, and exhibits ferromagnetic properties below room temperature.
Gadolinium demonstrates a magnetocaloric effect whereby its temperature increases when it enters a magnetic field and decreases when it leaves the magnetic field. The effect is considerably stronger for the gadolinium alloy Gd5(Si2Ge2).
The Curie temperature of gadolinium is 19° C. Cool the gadolinium chunk in liquid nitrogen and suspend it from the magnet. As it warms to room temperature it will drop from the magnet.
With careful spacing of the magnet and cup, it's possible to set the chunk of gadolinium in the cup of LN2 and let it jump to the magnet when it cools. When it warms past its Curie temperature, it will fall back into the cup. The cycle continues until the liquid nitrogen evaporates.
Jerry
Weird that heat or infrared radiation can change the magnetic properties of a metal, how does that work? I guess the heating/cooling organizes/disorganizes the atoms? or maybe crystallizes at lower temps and uncrystallizes at warmer ones?
cool stuff, thanks for sharing
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on June 18, 2009, 02:53:58 PM
Weird that heat or infrared radiation can change the magnetic properties of a metal, how does that work? I guess the heating/cooling organizes/disorganizes the atoms? or maybe crystallizes at lower temps and uncrystallizes at warmer ones?
cool stuff, thanks for sharing
Hi Pyro.
Not just Infrared but Magnetic fields as well, if the Gadolinium accelerates through a magnetic field it will gain heat in which at some point when it reaches its Curie point it will demagnetize. so it is limited in its velocity but as it passes out of the magnetic field it gets cold and re-magnetizes and the process will continue to pulse on and off until the Gadolinium turns into a block of ice at some point.
all substances have a Curie point even in the weakest of magnetic fields of paramagnetics, Diamagnetics, Ferromagnetics, Antiferromagnetics, Ferrymagnetics and so forth, some experience a field collapse and some experience a different field property, Temperature(Tc) can change a substance dramatically, sometimes it is the lack of heat or sometimes a gain in heat and or both. so one only knows a substance if they have tested that substance at all temperatures and field characteristics.
and you are correct about the electron orbital organizing and disorganizing in their Curie point state.
Jerry ;)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 18, 2009, 02:08:01 PM
Hi GB.
all the planetary bodies orbiting the Sun are using up their 'stored' energy, when that energy approaches Zero their orbits will fall closer into the sun and eventually they will burn up when they get to close and at some point will be destroyed. its energy will now be absorbed by the Sun.
Jerry
You're missing the point. Place a stationary object near the sun that has no kinetic energy. This object will now move towards the sun and plunge into it.
In order for the object to gravitate and plunge into the sun, there has to be work done on that object in order for it to move. The force of gravity is doing the work, cause there is not an equal force on the opposite side to counter act it. This is an unidirectional force that exists in nature and is proof that a force can do work without an external energy source being used.
You could say that the sun is the external energy source and is being consumed by burning it's gas. Replace the sun with an equal mass that is cold and not consuming itself. The effect will still be the same.
Now place a smaller object between two large masses that are equal in mass and all 3 will have no kinetic energy. Put a bar between the two large masses so they can't gravitate towards each other with the smaller object between them (not a realistic example but you should know where this is leading).
The smaller object will not gravitate or move towards either mass since the forces that are acting on it are equal on both sides. Now remove one of the large masses with the bar and the objects will gravitate towards each other, since their is no counterforce on the other side. Again, an unidirectional force is doing the work without energy being apllied. Also note, with all 3 masses in the equation with the bar, the forces are present, but they cancel each other out and is not capable of doing work. With only two masses present the total forces present is less than the total forces of all 3 masses, but it is capable of doing work since there is no counterforce.
It is clear as day, that a force can do work if there is not an equal counterforce present, which breaks no current acceptable theories or laws of physics if the laws are defined properly.
If a magnet would pulse instead of being continuous, then we would have Over Unity easy. Since it is continuous, we have to use energy or another force to move the magnet to have a change of flux in time.
We have an abundance of energy and forces present that nature has provided for us, more than enough or what is required. But this abundance is causing a problem with Over Unity. Get rid of some of the forces present in a system where it has no counterforce such as gravity, and Over Unity is possible.
Gravity is an Over Unity Force. Maybe you should reconsider what a force is and what energy is, since it is not defined or defined correctly in physics, instead of telling me not to confuse the two. I propose that Energy is an effect that is caused by a force doing work. This could be worded in many different ways, but the basic principle will remain the same.
In a waterwheel, the water is the force and the effect is the wheel spinning, which is a mechanical energy. The mechanical energy is the effect caused by the force of water acting on the wheel. The mechanical energy is not doing any work to cause the wheel to spin. It is the force that is doing the work in spinning the wheel.
I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm just not convinced otherwise. ;D
Hi GB.
you can't fool Mother Nature. Gravity is a one way ticket to Hell.
Jerry
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 19, 2009, 12:57:40 AM
Hi GB.
you can't fool Mother Nature. Gravity is a one way ticket to Hell.
Jerry
You can't fool Mother Nature, but it is Mother Nature that is doing the fooling. Gravity is a one way ticket to hell, and anti-gravity is a ticket to Paradise.
Quote from: gravityblock on June 19, 2009, 01:02:02 AM
You can't fool Mother Nature, but it is Mother Nature that is doing the fooling. Gravity is a one way ticket to hell, and anti-gravity is a ticket to Paradise.
Gravity is a monopole Gravitational Tensor Field, it has no Anti-Gravity nor does it have an Anti-Particle Graviton by theory. Gravity is its own Anti just like Photons.
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field.
would you really know when someone is telling you the truth? I know I am.
I make it a habit of studying your God and His works, Mainstream Science and Physics don't lie but they do make corrected mistakes sometimes but most are wickedly smart by any means.
I actually met somebody who thought the world was only 6000 years old, that was it for me. you couldn't talk to him about anything, he thought I was trying to steer him away from his God. how politely ignorant I might say, he thought Dinosaurs was a plot to steal his soul.
I call this a mental illness unchecked in a church.
If the Church was really smart they would look at Science and Physics and tell their children this is how everything works because this is the rule and the law of their God, but it doesn't happen that way does it.
observed facts will one day kill off all that have no solid evidence, do you want this to happen to Religion?
besides, the Electromagnetic force is much stronger than the Gravitational force unit for unit, so why do you choose Gravitational?
Jerry
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 19, 2009, 01:31:33 AM
Gravity is a monopole Gravitational Tensor Field, it has no Anti-Gravity nor does it have an Anti-Particle Graviton by theory. Gravity is its own Anti just like Photons.
In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field.
I think that the observations of lensing indicate that a quantum theory of gravity, based on gravitons interacting with every particle including individual photons, cannot be correct. For graviton interaction to be correct, a photon would have to follow a polygonal path as it passes a massive body, each segment of the polygon being, perhaps, of planck length.
I think gravity has more to do with gravity waves causing the atoms between two bodies to have the same spin, which attracts each other. Find a way to cause the atoms between two bodies to have a different spin, then they would repel each other and have anti-gravity. Another way would be just to block the waves from causing the atoms to have the same spin. I'm not stating this as fact, but it is my focus of study at the moment.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 19, 2009, 01:31:33 AM
would you really know when someone is telling you the truth? I know I am.
I make it a habit of studying your God and His works, Mainstream Science and Physics don't lie but they do make corrected mistakes sometimes but most are wickedly smart by any means.
I actually met somebody who thought the world was only 6000 years old, that was it for me. you couldn't talk to him about anything, he thought I was trying to steer him away from his God. how politely ignorant I might say, he thought Dinosaurs was a plot to steal his soul.
I call this a mental illness unchecked in a church.
If the Church was really smart they would look at Science and Physics and tell their children this is how everything works because this is the rule and the law of their God, but it doesn't happen that way does it.
observed facts will one day kill off all that have no solid evidence, do you want this to happen to Religion?
besides, the Electromagnetic force is much stronger than the Gravitational force unit for unit, so why do you choose Gravitational?
Jerry
I'm not choosing one over the other in regards to the electromagnetic and gravitational force. The gravitational force appears to be operating in attraction mode only, a unidirectional force. Reverse the effect and it would be in repulsion only or anti-gravity. I feel that gravity is an Over Unity force which suggest anti-gravity would be an Over Unity force also with extra benefits.
The electromagnetic force operates in attraction and repulsion modes. The best option for the electromagnetic force I believe is a modified homopolar motor/generator, since it is proven mathematically to be Mechanical Over Unity.
The churches now a days are in a complete mess. I will give you that. 6,000 years is taught, but I have my doubts about this, cause elsewhere it says a day is like a thousand years. 6,000 years could be 2,190,000,000 years (365 x 1000 x 6000), which is more in line with science and physics. That number may reflect the age of mankind and not the age of the earth.
Also Ezekiel makes clear references to UFO's and aliens with descriptions of both. The Book of Enoch goes even further than Ezekiel with it's details and descriptions.
The problem with the churches, is the people are misinterpreting the scriptures to fit their own ideas, while the text is accurate. Also the churches have rejected certain manuscripts that are key to understanding the mystery, such as the Books of Enoch. There is a lot of symbolic language used in the ancient manuscripts, which is read out of context.
I could write an entire book on this. In the last year, most of my religious beliefs have been turned upside down. When I read the ancient texts now, I get a totally different view on things than the mainstream church. In fact, I have went from having faith in God, to believing in God, with a 0% doubt that he is a living infinite God who is my creator.
Hi Gb.
I will discuss this when I am more humane, I have studied 'all' the books and I can tell you it is the future Earth and not aliens. you don't have much faith in mankind achieving time travel do you?
Mankind designing your future, it is atrocious isn't it.
It will happen, infact it is already happening. have more faith in your own species.
Jerry
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 19, 2009, 03:11:43 AM
Hi Gb.
I will discuss this when I am more humane, I have studied 'all' the books and I can tell you it is the future Earth and not aliens. you don't have much faith in mankind achieving time travel do you?
Mankind designing your future, it is atrocious isn't it.
It will happen, infact it is already happening. have more faith in your own species.
Jerry
I think it is possible for mankind to achieve time travel. I'll have more faith in my species once they have been enlightened. If this has occurred in the future of mankind, then this is no surprise to me. It has already been written. After saying this, I will always put my faith and belief in my God before my species any day.
It is also written, that there will be miraculous signs and wonders in the heavens. Many will worship and give power to the beast who is performing the miraculous signs and wonders, and will deceive even the elect of God.
I am fully aware of what lies ahead and have put on the whole Armour of God.
I can not make a more constructive comment at this time until there is a further discussion.
Maybe you getting smashed again like the other night. Have to wait and see where this is going.
The problem with the churches, is the people are misinterpreting the scriptures to fit their own ideas, while the text is accurate. Also the churches have rejected certain manuscripts that are key to understanding the mystery, such as the Books of Enoch. There is a lot of symbolic language used in the ancient manuscripts, which is read out of context.
I agree with that
GB:
when you say gravity is only working one way, I think this is not right...
Before the universe was as it is now a massive input of energy somewhere must have occurred
the force of gravity is just restoring things back to their original state......at some point the earth and the sun were not separated and everything was all together then (if you follow the big bang theory) things were spread out and gravity just pulls them back in....
so any energy you could extract from gravity would only be stored potential energy from separation
just like two magnets, it takes energy to pull them apart and releases when they are drawn back together.....
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on June 19, 2009, 12:25:20 PM
GB:
when you say gravity is only working one way, I think this is not right...
Before the universe was as it is now a massive input of energy somewhere must have occurred
the force of gravity is just restoring things back to their original state......at some point the earth and the sun were not separated and everything was all together then (if you follow the big bang theory) things were spread out and gravity just pulls them back in....
so any energy you could extract from gravity would only be stored potential energy from separation
just like two magnets, it takes energy to pull them apart and releases when they are drawn back together.....
I think you misinterpreted what I meant by gravity working only one way. It is working in attraction mode, and doesn't have a side to it that repels like the magnets. If gravity could be manipulated to work in repulsive mode, anti-gravity, then you don't need to worry about energy to pull them apart. All you need to do is ride the gravity/anti-gravity waves. I'm trying to keep things simple here, without getting into the complexity of things.
Gravity is not the only player in the game. Galaxies on average are actually moving away from each other and not coming together and according to current observations the universe is still expanding. Yes, some galaxies are on a collision course and attracting towards each other. This is due to them being under the influences of each other's mass. As well as being pulled on by gravity, galaxies also ride along with the overall expansion of the Universe.
Maybe the universe is expanding and contracting and could be said to be breathing. We just haven't had enough time to observe it inhaling yet.
I don't think it takes energy to do work. I think all it takes is to have an unequal or non uniform force acting on an entity that does not cancel each others force in order for work to be done. Weather the forces are uniform with no work being done, or the forces are non uniform with work being done, there is no loss or gain either way. This means it doesn't require more energy or more force to do work, than it requires not to do any work. Actually it would require less energy or force in order for there to be work done, than not to do any work at all.
Back to the water wheel real quick. Have two equal streams of water flowing past the wheel in opposite directions where the two streams are divided as they flow past the wheel. No work will be done and the wheel won't spin. Remove one of the streams or forces and work will be done and cause the wheel to spin. It is doing work with less forces involved than not doing any work at all. Sometimes more is not always better.
Regarding the future. I believe that there is a future that is moving towards us. Our present is there future and their present is our future. They are not moving backwards in time, just as we are not moving backwards in time. They are only moving in time from an opposite direction than us. Let's say they are moving from North to South, and we are moving from South to North. There is also a time that is moving from East to West, and a time that is moving from West to East.
Time is moving in an infinite many number of directions. There are only 4 dimensions in our universe. Length, width, height, and time. Time is the X factor that can make up an infinite number of other universes each having it's own 4 dimensions.
Time travel only requires you to change the polarity of time that you are currently in. Once you successfully changed your direction of time, then you would be coming from the future into the past.
Time also has a frequency. If you can control the frequency of Time, then you can control how fast or slow you are moving in time. This allows you to either move in the direction of your future or the direction of the past at your desired speed according to the polarity of Time you have chosen.
Faster than light travel is possible by changing the frequency of Time that you are currently in.
Just like the radio, you have different frequencies. You can't listen to what is happening on another frequency unless you tune into that frequency. Time has a frequency that can be altered to a different Time.
I assume the amplitude of Time would allow you to move Perpendicular in Time. Moving from South to North, then from North to the east and so on.
Yes, this is all speculation. It is a very real possibility though. As I heard one person say, nature is bipolar as hell. Female/male, north/south, east/west, negative/positve, clockwise/counter-clockwise, up/down, heads/tails, good/evil, gravity/anti-gravity, matter/anti-matter, right/left, forward time/reverse time, wisdom/folly, rich/poor, future/past, slow/fast, attraction/repulsion, contraction/expansion, etc.
Below is a map of the local universe. This map has recorded the positions of more than 110,000 galaxies over more than 80% of the Southern sky, out to about two thousand million light-years from Earth, (a redshift of 0.15).
This map is by no means complete.
I agree things are very dual, so maybe there is some hidden knowledge there....
would be cool to be able to manipulate time, but how? If it was like electromagnetics -a material or process that could transfer energy into to manipulate time....kind of like the way we transfer motion to electricity, we need a way to transfer electricity to ??? I dunno, the closest I have seen to something like that is T.T. Browns stuff....
Quote from: gravityblock on November 26, 2008, 11:38:53 PM
LMFAO. An atomic clock is not a mechanical or digital device. An atomic clock is a clock that uses the resonance frequencies of atoms as its resonator. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the resonator is "regulated by the frequency of the microwave electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by the quantum transition (energy change) of an atom or molecule. For more information on atomic clocks, refer to wikipedia.
I automaticly assumed this would be understood. In the very first mention of a clock I did mention atomic clock, and in other places I did not add atomic before the clock. Please note: All mentions of clocks is referring to atomic clocks.
Yes mass will have an affect on a atomic clock because gravity will affect the resonance frequencies of a atom, but gravity does not affect space or time. Why? Because space is nothing. Another word that is equal to space is distance. Space is just distance between point A and point B. You can not bend distance because it is made up of nothing. It is like trying to multiply a number by zero, no matter how you try it, zero is your answer.
As for time, last time I checked time does not have mass or create a wave. Therefor gravity can not affect time. There is no real time line. Time does not travel. Time is instantaneous from one edge of the universe to the other. Time is only a calculation. You can not travel back in calculation.
Yes we will be able to see into the past since light does not travel at the speed of time.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on June 21, 2009, 09:30:57 PM
I agree things are very dual, so maybe there is some hidden knowledge there....
would be cool to be able to manipulate time, but how? If it was like electromagnetics -a material or process that could transfer energy into to manipulate time....kind of like the way we transfer motion to electricity, we need a way to transfer electricity to ??? I dunno, the closest I have seen to something like that is T.T. Browns stuff....
I think cuttingedge has some insight on how to manipulate time and space that goes back to the ancient of days. He may spoonfeed us here and there, but I don't think he will do our thinking for us.
I have some ideas on how anti-gravity may be achieved, but not sure how to test, experiment, or implement this without the use of exotic materials, equipment, and an unlimited budget. I have ruled out anti-matter, dark matter and negative mass. Negative mass being ruled out mathematically and not scientifically due to it's apparent non existence.
Think of it as an anti-gravity/gravity magnet where all of the elementary particles have their spins aligned opposite to that of earth, instead of the electrons being aligned to have the same spin as in a magnet. I will use the term gravity magnet for better reading instead of anti-gravity/gravity magnet.
The problem with accomplishing this, is the entire gravity magnet would need to spin due to all of the atoms collectively making up that particular mass, and this would negate the spin of the atoms and cancel each other out. I didn't make myself clear on this, but I haven't found a better way to express my thoughts on this yet.
The elementary particles in the gravity magnet would need to be individually separated from each other or behave as such, all having the same spin within the gravity magnet that is opposite to that of the earth. Since the elementary particles in the gravity magnet will have a different spin as the earth, then the gravity magnet and earth should repel each other.
The gravity magnet needs to be built with Quasiparticles,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle , at the nano-scale level and with an external magnet, electromagnet, or other source depending on the type of Quasiparticles used to determine its spin. The particles in the gravity magnet will behave as that of a single particle in a system, coupled with the effect the former has on the latter. The entire gravity magnet will behave somewhat like a single free particle with an effect of the entire gravity magnet.
I'm working on how to simplify this in order for not needing exotic materials so the average person can build and test. Not sure if this can be accomplished at this low of a level or not.
Quasiparticles and Quasi-crystals may be the road to anti-gravity. We will never know, unless there is a discussion on how to do it.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: tournamentdan on June 21, 2009, 10:45:49 PM
Yes mass will have an affect on a atomic clock because gravity will affect the resonance frequencies of a atom, but gravity does not affect space or time. Why? Because space is nothing. Another word that is equal to space is distance. Space is just distance between point A and point B. You can not bend distance because it is made up of nothing. It is like trying to multiply a number by zero, no matter how you try it, zero is your answer.
As for time, last time I checked time does not have mass or create a wave. Therefor gravity can not affect time. There is no real time line. Time does not travel. Time is instantaneous from one edge of the universe to the other. Time is only a calculation. You can not travel back in calculation.
Yes we will be able to see into the past since light does not travel at the speed of time.
The length of an object is also the distance between point A and point B, and the length of the object is not nothing, so why is the length of space nothing when it doesn't apply to the length of an object?
Space contains virtual particles, background radiation and other non-visible energy and matter. There is dark matter/energy present in space that is not visible. I can assure you, space is containing something. If not, then space would not exist. Without space, then matter can not be contained. Nothing can not contain something.
An atomic clock that is in the vacuum of space and not under the influence of gravity, will tick faster than under the influence of gravity.
The resonant frequencies of the atoms determines the atom's Time. If gravity affects the resonant frequencies of atoms, then it is affecting it's Time.
Time is more than a calculation. Without time, nothing would happen. Everything would stand still. The length, width, and height of an object is a calculation of the size of an object, but the object is not just a calculation.
Time is the frequency or how often something is occurring. If gravity affects the frequency of an atom, then it is affecting how often that atom is generating electromagnetic and gravity waves, etc. It is also affecting how fast or slow it is oscillating. It is affecting how fast or slow it is releasing and absorbing energy. It is affecting how often something is occurring or not occurring.
Time is real and is not just a calculation. Time is the main factor in how much space a photon of light in the vacuum of space can travel within a given period. The photon is
not massless. It has a slight mass, thus time affects it. If time didn't affect the photon, then it would be massless in our 3 dimensions and it wouldn't be confined to the speed of light.
Virtual particles are massless in our 3 dimensions, and these particles can travel faster than the speed of light within our time dimension, since time in our dimension is not affecting them. If the magnetic field can get out of a black hole, then this suggests that the virtual particles are traveling faster than the speed of light and is massless within our time dimension. They may be affected by time in another dimension and may have mass in another dimension, but not within our dimension.
This is the frequency of Time. The frequency of time allows for a specific dimension to have 3 dimensions for mass with it's own independent time dimension, which can contain other dimensions for mass with it's own independent time dimension. and so forth.
The magnetic field is made up of virtual particles that are massless in our 3 dimensions, and is not affected by time in our dimension, but may be affected in another dimension than ours. The magnetic field and gravitational fields are operating on a different frequency of Time than the frequency of Time within our dimension.
Physics and science will never isolate the particle or wave that is responsible for gravity using a physical device since it is massless in our dimension. Meaning it has no length, no width, and no height in our time dimension. It can only be observed in our dimension as an affect of mass. They will not be able to unify gravity with the other forces of nature, until they take Time into consideration.
I am sure there is no way of convincing you otherwise, and I respect your opinion.
Bending the Arrow of Relative time into an inverse Archimedes spiral isn't easy, it requires a lot of Nuclear energy, the other problem is that Humans can't bank into a circle at C that tight without dying, Humans have to be stored in a quantum teleportation buffer and that alone requires a Quantum Super Computer, Humans would go mad if they tried to make an inverse time journey where everything appears to melt into one environment and nothing seems to make sense, also, Humans can't think fast enough to do work at those speeds, it is an entirely automated system and this has to occur at certain velocities where Humans are pretty useless as pilots. traveling the inwards into an Archimedes spiral at close to or at C is very dangerous if not done the way it is supposed to be done, we still have some technologies that need to be perfected first or else it will be impossible. the Zero Point Dimension is a Wormhole throat and it takes a lot of mass and velocity traveling inversely in an Archimedes spiral to such the Zero Point throat to open up and then shoot into it before it closes, the zero point dimension leads to all time and to all possible Universes.
Remember the Door that no Man Opens and No Man Shuts? This is why. it is also referred to as the very narrow road/Place/Path.
Jerry ;)
Thanks for the insight Jerry. :)
GB
Thanks GB.
It is technically referred to as a dilation of space & time or dilating a zero dimensional point or wormhole, It's funny, to travel it you have to become quantum beings of stored light. and what else is funny is that if that teleportation storage system isn't perfect, information can be lost a little at a time until to much information is missing and you can no longer function as a biological entity in the real world. so I see that this has to be perfected or re-quantifying an entity will have a limitation of how many times they can be re-quantified into a physical state.
just some fun stuff Bones was afraid of in Star Trek.
You know the old saying, The eyes are the window to ones soul, well it is not an untrue symbolism. Opening wormholes is also known as the Iris Effect. or the answer has always been in front of your eyes/nose and to blind to see it and stuff like that.
Jerry :o 8)
M't:6:22: The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Lu:11:34: The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.
Lu:11:36: If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.
Jer
In physics they teach you about the left hand rule and the right hand rule.They say that when a current flows it has both a magnetic field and an electric field.Since I really want rotating electric fields maybe a marco rodin coil of some type is what I want?The truth is I don't how fast that magnetic field rotates,but I guess the electric field rotates with it?Though it seems to be at a funny angle?triffid
It seems to me that If I were inside the doughnut shape of the giant marco rodin coil(and not in the center of it),I would experience the slowing down of time.Because that rotating electric field I want is there ( I think).So I could get inside of it and spend 100 years in there and come out having aged less than 5 years during that time.I'm just dreaming here of course.Triffid
Quote from: triffid on June 23, 2009, 11:13:34 AM
It seems to me that If I were inside the doughnut shape of the giant marco rodin coil(and not in the center of it),I would experience the slowing down of time.Because that rotating electric field I want is there ( I think).So I could get inside of it and spend 100 years in there and come out having aged less than 5 years during that time.I'm just dreaming here of course.Triffid
The magnetic field is outside the affects of our Time Dimension due to having no mass, but you would not be. You would need to have zero mass before Time in our dimension not to have an affect on you. This is my understanding of this at the moment.
Thats an interesting idea,trying to figure out a way to cancel mass.triffid
mass is a standing wave, thus a function of time
perhaps this guess fits timedilation somewhere
there is only one way to become Omni-Everything and that is to live inside the wormhole itself.
Jerry
Anti-matter??
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on June 24, 2009, 05:24:50 PM
Anti-matter??
1. How would you convert the Gamma Radiation to usable energy.
2. How would you focus its radiation.
3. How would you shield the radiation.
4. Is the power generated recyclable.
there are many issues with Anti-Matter at this day and age.
now I could use a small Gamma Ray LASER to convert Helium to Tritium and recycle the Tritium Process by bombarding a Neutron source with Gamma and using the Neutron Radiation to convert He back into Tritium which recycles the process until all the neutron source is depleted.
anyone have 7 large Gamma Ray LASER's laying around?
Jerry
Traveling the Inverse Archimedes Spiral at C, to open the zero point dimension makes a lot of sense to me.
It appears that most if not all galaxies are connected to, or were connected at some point, to this zero point dimension due to the black hole's mass/energy causing it to open. It also appears the galaxies are spiral shaped, similar to the Archimedes Spiral.
They have found so far, a black hole at the center of every galaxy they have studied.
This is how the galaxies are formed and created, through this zero point dimension, which makes up our universe and other universes operating on a different frequency of Time.
Traveling through a black hole's event horizon is not the best way to the zero point dimension, due to being torn apart by the black hole's gravity.
"Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant".
Quote from: triffid on June 24, 2009, 01:07:32 PM
Thats an interesting idea,trying to figure out a way to cancel mass.triffid
This is why light travels at C in
all frames of references, either in a moving frame or a frame at rest, the results will be the same. Since Time is used in the calculation of the speed, then Time ensures that the speed of light is calculated to have the same value in all frames, even though Time itself may not be the same between those different frames of references.
If you're moving at half C in a spacecraft, then Time may be ticking at half it's rate due to the increase in mass/energy of the spacecraft, which would cause the speed of light to be measured at C instead of half C, in both your moving frame of reference and in an outside observer's stationary frame of reference.
If Time was a constant or remained the same in all frames of references, then a moving frame would calculate C to have a lesser value than a stationary frame. Study this concept. Once you understand it, then it is no longer a mystery.
It is already mathematically proven that mass or energy slows Time and that Time affects mass also. It is also proven to be true from scientific experiments thus far.
You won't agree or understand this, until you understand how the underlying principals of Time in the universe is working and having an affect on the physical world. Time is variable and is not a constant value. If Time was constant, then C would be variable traveling through the same medium between a moving frame and stationary frame. Time is proportionally tied to the mass/energy in a system.
There will be no unification of the forces of nature until Time in the universe is taken into consideration and understand that Time itself is causing C to have the same value in all reference frames due to Time having a different value within those different reference frames.
An open ended loop of one turn(copper wire),ie a lakhovsky coil,is suppose to convert cosmic rays into electricity.We tend to think of cosmic rays as particles hitting the earth.Primary particles strike the top layers of the atmosphere causing showers of secondary particles.It is the secondary particles that we mostly see at the surface of the earth.Once in a while a primary will make it all the way to the surface.But cosmic rays are believed to occur everywhere in the universe.So we need to learn how to use the type of electricity generated by these coils.I really want want to say that gamma rays can be used in a lakhovsky coil too but I 'm not sure.Gamma rays tend to be rays and not particles.I do think gamma rays can cause secondary particles.Triffid
A rotating magnetic field would have an electric field vector moving with it I am sure.But I know I will never build one myself(a marco rodin coil).Certainly not large enough to step inside of.I can still talk about it.I believe that if space can be stressed by a rotating electric field.That the future flow of time can be slowed down for any object in that area of the universe.If you believe that the closer a rocket gets to the speed of light that time slows down for everybody that is aboard .Just thinking out loud here again.triffid
So this is not a time machine but more of a" time slower down" machine.Time would slow down for anyone or anything inside of it.Triffid
@triffid:
Did you read my post on the Quasiparticles, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6157.msg187344#msg187344 , for the gravity magnet. Since the Quasiparticles would act as a single free particle, wouldn't this cause the gravity magnet to have a relative mass of a single particle, with the affects of a larger mass that would be spinning opposite to the earth for anti-gravity. Would this slow or speed Time up, or maybe have no affect at all? I'm not sure about this. I would like to hear some comments on this from all.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on June 27, 2009, 10:36:02 PM
It is already mathematically proven that mass or energy slows Time and that Time affects mass also. It is also proven to be true from scientific experiments thus far.
I wish you would think about what you are saying. Yes gravity affects a atomic clock because a atom has a frequency. TIME DOES NOT HAVE A FREQUENCY AND IT DOES NOT HAVE MASS. So it can not be affected by gravity. The frequency of a atom for an atomic clock is equal to the gears in the big Ben clock. Also remember time and distance is only a measurement and a measurement can not be bent. Space is not made up of anything it is only a void that has distance. and just because a mass has distance does not mean distance has mass.
Quote from: tournamentdan on June 29, 2009, 11:40:27 PM
I wish you would think about what you are saying. Yes gravity affects a atomic clock because a atom has a frequency. TIME DOES NOT HAVE A FREQUENCY AND IT DOES NOT HAVE MASS. So it can not be affected by gravity. The frequency of a atom for an atomic clock is equal to the gears in the big Ben clock. Also remember time and distance is only a measurement and a measurement can not be bent. Space is not made up of anything it is only a void that has distance. and just because a mass has distance does not mean distance has mass.
Exactly... But space and time are some of the least understood, and most fundamental aspects of nature... Who knows what we'll learn in the future.
In principle, a black hole can have any mass significantly above the Planck mass. To make a black hole, one must concentrate mass or energy sufficiently that the escape velocity from the region in which it is concentrated exceeds the speed of light. This condition gives the Schwarzschild radius, R = 2GM / c2, where G is Newton's constant and c is the speed of light, as the size of a black hole of mass M. On the other hand, the Compton wavelength, λ = h / Mc, where h is Planck's constant, represents a limit on the minimum size of the region in which a mass M at rest can be localized. For sufficiently small M, the Compton wavelength exceeds the Schwarzschild radius, and no black hole description exists. This smallest mass for a black hole is thus approximately the Planck mass, which is about 2 × 10âˆ'8 kg or 1.2 × 1019 GeV/c2.
Some extensions of present physics posit the existence of extra dimensions of space. In higher-dimensional spacetime, the strength of gravity increases more rapidly with decreasing distance than in three dimensions. With certain special configurations of the extra dimensions, this effect can lower the Planck scale to the TeV range. Examples of such extensions include large extra dimensions, special cases of the Randall-Sundrum model, and String theory configurations like the GKP solutions. In such scenarios, black hole production could possibly be an important and observable effect at the LHC, It would also be a common natural phenomenon induced by the cosmic rays.
trapped photons can build up photon densities, photon induced Blackhole horizons are quite possible in Quantum Physics.
Quote from: tournamentdan on June 29, 2009, 11:40:27 PM
I wish you would think about what you are saying. Yes gravity affects a atomic clock because a atom has a frequency. TIME DOES NOT HAVE A FREQUENCY AND IT DOES NOT HAVE MASS. So it can not be affected by gravity. The frequency of a atom for an atomic clock is equal to the gears in the big Ben clock. Also remember time and distance is only a measurement and a measurement can not be bent. Space is not made up of anything it is only a void that has distance. and just because a mass has distance does not mean distance has mass.
I have never said that Time has mass. Just because it doesn't have mass, doesn't mean mass can't affect it or that it can't affect mass. The magnetic field of flux in a magnet doesn't have mass, but yet it is capable of repelling and attracting another magnet mass or attracting other metals.
The frequency is Time. Don't confuse the time we use in our daily lives with the Time of the universe. The time we use in our daily lives is the time that it takes for the earth to make a complete rotation on it's axis and a complete rotation around the sun, etc. The time we use is based upon certain events and measurements, which is different than the Time governing the universes. The universe has a different Time than the time we are using, which is not based on our measurements, but is giving us what to base our measurements on.
Do you know what the difference is between a gamma ray and a radio wave? The short answer is the gamma ray has more energy than a radio wave. Why does it have more energy, when they are made up of the exact same thing? It has to do with the frequency and amplitude. Both the gamma rays and radio waves are sent in packets. The gamma rays have real quick bursts of packets, while the radio waves have shorter bursts of packets. As you can see, the frequency or Time is related to the amount of energy that is delivered in a system. The higher the frequency, the more packets that it can deliver within the same amount of Time. Time is a factor here, in regards to energy.
The amplitude is proportionally tied to the frequency, meaning if you know the amplitude, then you know the frequency, and vice versa. The amplitude is related to space, while the frequency is related to Time, thus you have space-time that is inseparable. The amplitude is the amount of space for a single packet. Packets can only be sent one at a time, and must wait for the previous packet to be sent, before sending another packet. Space and Time is what determines the energy in a system.
A large mass will send off packets of energy. These packets of energy are the size of the mass. Since these packets are occupying a large area of space, then it takes longer for these packets to leave before another packet is able to be sent. This is why the gravitational force is a weak force compared to the electromagnetic force. We have a low frequency or lesser Time and a high amplitude or greater space. This difference between the frequency and amplitude is what causes the space and time to be curved. This affects other objects trajectory path, due to the space-time curvature.
In empty space, the frequency or Time is equal to the amplitude or Space, thus no space-time curvature. Time and Space are being delivered in a continuous stream and not in packets in empty space. Mass causes Time and Space to be delivered in packets, which gives us frequency of Time and amplitude of Space. A continuous stream of energy can not have a length, width, or height, it is massless. Once something has a length, width, and height, then it has mass, and can only be delivered in packets. It is also true that when something is being delivered in packets, then it will have mass or a length, width, and height. If it didn't have mass, then it wouldn't need to wait until it could deliver another packet.
Time and Space are broken up into packets at the plank scale due to a concentration of mass/energy. Mass/energy is the same thing as space-time, except mass/energy is delivered or made up of packets of energy/mass, while space-time is delivered or made up from a continuous stream of energy. Time and Space are at 90 degrees to each other. Mass/energy is made up of packets from a continuous stream of Time/Space. The larger a mass, the less time it has. A large mass will cause space-time to be curved, due to it affecting the amount of Time within Space, and the amount of Space within Time. Space-time is inseparable and are linked together. If they wasn't linked together, then mass couldn't cause a curvature in it. Space/Time and Energy/Mass are just different manifestations of the same thing, and so they can affect each other.
Nature has it's own Time Clock that is tied to the very fabric of space. Forget about your own measurements of time, cause nature has it's own independent Time that it is running off of that can be manipulated by mass and space.
Quote from: gravityblock on June 22, 2009, 12:35:30 AM
The length of an object is also the distance between point A and point B, and the length of the object is not nothing, so why is the length of space nothing when it doesn't apply to the length of an object?
I was referring to this comment about the distance not having mass. Time does not create flux it does not create a sound wave. Time is not real. It is only a measurement There is no past only memories.
QuoteNature has it's own Time Clock that is tied to the very fabric of space. Forget about your own measurements of time, cause nature has it's own independent Time that it is running off of that can be manipulated by mass and space.
No. There is no universal reference frame or "time", time is just relative to gravity and velocity... But our perception (i.e. within a moving frame) is supposed be constant (like c) regardless of your velocity through space or the amount of gravity you're experiencing, your time perception is constant, from what I understand.. If this isn't the case please show me a reference.
Quote from: newbie123 on June 30, 2009, 08:54:17 PM
No. There is no universal reference frame or "time", time is just relative to gravity and velocity... But our perception (i.e. within a moving frame) is supposed be constant (like c) regardless of your velocity through space or the amount of gravity you're experiencing, your time perception is constant, from what I understand.. If this isn't the case please show me a reference.
Time is variable with no universal reference frame or time. After saying this, I will say it again. "Nature has it's own Time Clock that is tied to the very fabric of space. Forget about your own measurements of time, cause nature has it's own independent Time that it is running off of that can be manipulated by mass and space".
You're looking at this from your perspective, and I'm looking at this from the universe's perspective. We'll all learn more if we change our own reference frame to another reference frame instead of just looking at our own.
If Time wasn't variable, then light wouldn't be C in all frames of references. This is the basis of Relativity Theory, that all experiments thus far agrees with. C = Constant, The speed of light is (C)onstant in all frames!
Your time perception may be constant, but this is all relative, and doesn't mean your perception of Time is correct, since everything around you will be following the same Time. If your moving at half C, and you measure the speed of light from your spacecraft to be at C while an outside stationary observer measures the light from your spacecraft to be at C, then the perception of Time is the same for the local and outside observer. It is obvious, that light is moving at half C relative to his spacecraft for the local observer, but the local observer measures it to be at C because time has slowed down for him, thus giving him the same perception as the outside observer. In reality time has slowed down for the local observer, which allows him to perceive the speed of light to have the same value as an outside stationary observer.
The perception of Time and the reality of Time are different from each other. I don't think we are in disagreement. I do think you are trying to confuse the issue or to make it more complicated than it needs to be.
Quote from: tournamentdan on June 30, 2009, 08:34:40 PM
I was referring to this comment about the distance not having mass. Time does not create flux it does not create a sound wave. Time is not real. It is only a measurement There is no past only memories.
A sound wave and flux? A sound wave has nothing to do with this and we're not talking about magnets or magnetic flux (I'm not sure where you got this sound wave idea from...it wasn't from me. The mentioning of a sound wave, leads me to believe you have no understanding of this whatsoever. The gamma ray and radio waves are electromagnetic waves and are
not sound waves. A gamma ray is very close to being a continuous stream of energy, but it is still delivered in packets....meaning it has a mass and is affected by Time). Oh, I mentioned something about magnets and metals......so you could see how something that is massless, the flux, can have an affect on something that has mass, a metal piece....but I never expected you to think I was saying that Time creates a flux.... LOL
I hate to burst your bubble, but physicists have already sent a single photon back in Time. If there was no past, but just memories, then how did they send the photon back through Time?
I'm looking for the reference to this. It was on a TV series with a leading physicist of our time, doing the research and experiments with sending photons through time.
From my research, the quasiparticles have already been used in a 2 bit quantum computer. These technologies that need to be perfected are not far off to being a reality.
Not one word about quasiparticles other than from me. LOL
Edit: Here is half of the video. The other half shows the actual experiment and equipment for sending a photon through Time. I'm still looking for the other half.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1201649/time_travel_einsteins_big_idea_theory_of_relativity/
Quote from: gravityblock on June 30, 2009, 08:01:37 AM
I have never said that Time has mass. Just because it doesn't have mass, doesn't mean mass can't affect it or that it can't affect mass. The magnetic field of flux in a magnet doesn't have mass, but yet it is capable of repelling and attracting another magnet mass or attracting other metals.
I have only made comments to what you have compared to time as the reference that you made about flux. You forget what you say to quickly. This will be my last comment because I seem to be a bit repetitive and you seem to be stuck in the same tunnel vision. I am sorry I thought you may of understood that I have been saying that there is no wave of time whether it be a gamma ray, or radio wave, micro wave, ocean wave. You keep referring to a frequency so in order to have a frequency you must have a ray or wave, and in order to have those it must be created some where. Where do you suppose that is? The center of the universe so that it can expand outward? If you believe in the big bang theory this is the way I see it. Space was not created by the big bang. Space was allready there. How can you create nothing. There is no fabric of space or time. The universe is expanding outward but space is allready infinite. How can you bend something if it has no mass or a field or a ray or a wave. Time is equal to a number.All it is is a measurement
Quote from: Chef on July 02, 2009, 05:43:01 PM
If that is true, why we aging?
You are joking right? You think that we age because time makes us age. Let's see..... because our bodies are mechanical and the working pieces get worn out. Like a heart. It is no different than a engine the more you use it the more wear you put on it , just like any organ we have. How about our brain. Well I know the more memory used up on my computer the slower it gets.As for the way we look, that is all up to gravity.
Quote from: tournamentdan on July 02, 2009, 04:56:29 PM
I have only made comments to what you have compared to time as the reference that you made about flux. You forget what you say to quickly. This will be my last comment because I seem to be a bit repetitive and you seem to be stuck in the same tunnel vision. I am sorry I thought you may of understood that I have been saying that there is no wave of time whether it be a gamma ray, or radio wave, micro wave, ocean wave. You keep referring to a frequency so in order to have a frequency you must have a ray or wave, and in order to have those it must be created some where. Where do you suppose that is? The center of the universe so that it can expand outward? If you believe in the big bang theory this is the way I see it. Space was not created by the big bang. Space was allready there. How can you create nothing. There is no fabric of space or time. The universe is expanding outward but space is allready infinite. How can you bend something if it has no mass or a field or a ray or a wave. Time is equal to a number.All it is is a measurement
I don't forget what I say. You are taking what I say completely out of context and twisting every word of mine to mean something else.
When Time is a continuous stream, then it is
massless and doesn't have a wave or mass within any given point in space. It actually is a wave, but this wave is the size of the entire universe. It will not have a mass if you measure within any given point in space. For it to have a mass, you would need to take or measure the entire wave, which is the size of the universe, before you noticed it to have a mass or is a wave.
This continuous stream of Time or one large wave is responsible for space and is expanding outwards in all directions. When this continuous stream is broken up or delivered in packets, then it becomes an individual force within the universe with energy and has mass and a wave within a given area of space that is smaller than the universe ( An elementary particle). These elementary particles become a larger mass when they come together. When they come together, their frequency changes to represent the amount of energy or mass within this system. Energy, Mass, Space and Time are the same thing, just being delivered in a different way or is manifesting itself in a different way.
When Time is a continuous stream, it has no force within the universe, since the forces are equal in all directions (except on the outer edges of the universe, which is the expansion force). Once this stream is broken up into packets, then the forces are not equal in all directions, and a force arises that creates energy which can do work. This creation of energy is really converting Time or Space into an individual force that can do work, and is known to us as energy and mass.
The smaller the mass or wave, the higher the frequency is and the higher amount of Time it has, meaning it transverses more space horizontally and vertically, than a lower frequency and has the same linear speed (This is not a typo or mistake). Mass doesn't transverse space in a straight line. It is transversing space horizontally and vertically regardless of direction of motion in a corkscrew motion. This causes the higher frequencies that is traveling more space than a lower frequency, to travel the same distance of space linearly or to have the same linear speed within space. This causes light to have the same linear speed in all frames. Time being delivered in packets is an individual force and not a measurement. Time in a continuous stream is the force within the universe that is causing it's expansion. This expansion is not just a measurement, it is a force that is causing the measurements to be larger over Time.
People are only concerned with linear speed. We never consider taking both the horizontal and vertical distances into account with our measurements. A gamma ray travels more horizontal and vertical space than a radio wave within the same period, but they both travel the same distance of linear space at the same speed.
The faster you move in space traveling horizontally, the more space you will travel vertically, and vice versa, which causes mass to have a speed limit. The only way to travel in a straight line or path, is to have no mass. Once you are traveling in a straight path without the corkscrew motion, then you are not limited to C and not affected by Time due to
not having an individual mass within that given area of space, but is now part of the mass of the universe as a whole. The higher a frequency is, the tighter or smaller the corkscrew motion is, which causes it to complete more turns, thus transversing more space horizontally and vertically, but covering the same distance of linear space as a lower frequency.
This stuff is easy, but is very difficult to explain without causing confusion. LOL
I think the more I say, the more I confuse people.
A brief side note on mass:An elementary particle has an individual mass within a given area of space. A planet has an individual mass within a given area of space. These individual masses are part of the universe's mass, but they can be measured separately from the mass of the entire universe.
Something that is massless, has no individual mass within a given area of space, but has mass within the universe as a whole. It is no longer an individual, it is now part of a greater whole. It can not be measured separately. It can only be measured as part of the mass of the entire universe. Now you know why 97% of the universe appears to be missing, or otherwise known as dark energy or dark matter. There is only one force in the universe, and that is Time. Time can be broken up into individual forces or individual entities that can be measured separately from the entire universe, but still be part of the universe.
I'm thinking about creating a reference sheet that gives definitions for specific terms, so we can all be on the same page. Space and distance can actually have different meanings.
Thanks,
GB
I have not twisted anything. I said
Quote from: tournamentdan on June 29, 2009, 11:40:27 PM
TIME DOES NOT HAVE A FREQUENCY AND IT DOES NOT HAVE MASS. So it can not be affected by gravity.
and you said
Quote from: gravityblock on June 30, 2009, 08:01:37 AM
I have never said that Time has mass. Just because it doesn't have mass, doesn't mean mass can't affect it or that it can't affect mass. The magnetic field of flux in a magnet doesn't have mass, but yet it is capable of repelling and attracting another magnet mass or attracting other metals.
You made the comparison of time and magnetic flux not I.
Quote from: gravityblock on June 30, 2009, 08:01:37 AMThe faster you move in space traveling horizontally, the more space you will travel vertically, and vice versa, which causes mass to have a speed limit. The only way to travel in a straight line or path, is to have no mass. Once you are traveling in a straight path without the corkscrew motion, then you are not limited to C and not affected by Time due to not having an individual mass within that given area of space, but is now part of the mass of the universe as a whole. The higher a frequency is, the tighter or smaller the corkscrew motion is, which causes it to complete more turns, thus transversing more space horizontally and vertically, but covering the same distance of linear space as a lower frequency.
Really? Please tell me since the universe is expanding it is shaped like a sphere so tell me where to find the horizontal line and the vertical line. How do you know the vertical is not the horizontal and vise versa. And besides space is not expanding the universe is. Two separate things.
Quote from: gravityblock on July 02, 2009, 07:49:17 PMAn elementary particle has an individual mass within a given area of space. A planet has an individual mass within a given area of space. These individual masses are part of the universe's mass, but they can be measured separately from the mass of the entire universe.
The universe does not have mass. The universe is only the distance from the outer most edges of the outer most Galaxy's .The stars, planets,moons,asteroids,gases,dark matter or anti matter are the masses that make up the Galaxy
Look! Time is energy, without energy there could be no time! I wish that you would think about this before you answer to early, without energy time would stand still!
Energy is work, Time is work! Time is event!
Jerry ;)
Quote from: tournamentdan on July 02, 2009, 09:02:24 PM
I have not twisted anything. I said and you said You made the comparison of time and magnetic flux not I. Really? Please tell me since the universe is expanding it is shaped like a sphere so tell me where to find the horizontal line and the vertical line. How do you know the vertical is not the horizontal and vise versa. And besides space is not expanding the universe is. Two separate things.
The universe does not have mass. The universe is only the distance from the outer most edges of the outer most Galaxy's .The stars, planets,moons,asteroids,gases,dark matter or anti matter are the masses that make up the Galaxy
I made the comparison between time and the magnetic flux to show you how something that is massless, the flux, can affect a mass, a metal piece. I did not say that Time creates a flux, and those were your own words in reference to this comparison, when you said, "Time does not create flux". You completely misinterpreting and not understanding what I say.
The universe is expanding and the space is not (these are your words and not mine). So, what in the universe is actually expanding? The galaxies, mass, and energy that is moving away from each other and moving outwards is riding this expansion of space. The expansion of the universe is not the galaxies and mass moving away from each other and outwards in an infinitely large space. The expansion of the universe is in direct relation to the space expanding outwards that is containing the universe and not in reference to the galaxies moving outwards into an already existing space.
The direction of travel is the horizontal line, while 90 degress from your direction of travel is the vertical line. You could reverse the horizontal and vertical if you like, as long as you are consistent in using it. This is where language, definitions, terms, communications break down. There is no difference in saying something is running clockwise (CW) or counter clockwise (CCW). It is all relative to your position. If you're on one side of a spinning wheel, then it will be CW, while on the other side of the wheel, it will be spinning CCW. We need better definitions and better terms in our languages. Our languages limit us in our understanding of things. There are no words or terms that can be used, that will be correct in all the different reference frames. There is no term or word that can give the precise direction of movement without taking your current position and all other possible positions into account and be correct all the time. Just like CW and CCW is relative to your own position. Relativity is a real language barrier and is the author of confusion. There are no set points for the horizontal and vertical lines in space. It is all relative to your motion or direction of travel. Choose whatever makes more sense to you in regards to what is vertical and what is horizontal, but at least be consistent with it.
All individual objects or entities gives off an individual wave. From the smallest particle to the largest mass, they are giving off individual waves. The universe as a whole is also an individual entity that is giving off it's own wave. The universe as a whole is no different than an atom. Inside an atom is space, neutrons, protons, etc....that makes up the mass of an atom. This atom gives off a wave. The universe is a single entity as a whole. This single entity gives off a wave. This wave is the expansion force of the universe. When this wave is broken up into packets, then there are individual forces and energies that can be measured separate from the universe and still be a part of the universe as a whole. Things that have mass can be measured separately from the rest of the universe, while things that are massless, can only be measured as a part of the universe as a whole.
Before you can measure something, you first need to know what you are measuring. If you're measuring an object or an individual entity, then it will be confined to the space that it is occupying, and will have mass within that space. If you're measuring the universe, then it will be confined to the space that it is occupying, and will have mass. Something that is massless, can not be measured as an individual object, but must be measured as a part of the mass of the universe as a whole.
As far as the big bang is concerned, it may still be occurring or happening at the outer edges of the universe, where the continuous stream of Time meets and expands into nothingness while converting the nothingness into space. Some experiments suggest that the expansion of the universe is occurring faster than the speed of light. The big bang theory suggests that it happened at a greater speed of C also.
When Time meets and consumes nothingness while converting it into space at the edges of the universe, a great amount of heat is given off. When the space starts to cool at uneven rates, then it causes Time to have breaks in it. These breaks in Time, gives rise to individual forces, individual energies, individual masses with it's own individual Time Wave that is independent and can be measured separately from the universe as a whole, while still being a part of the universe.
Why does the Big Bang have to be over? Why can't it still be happening?
It's OK to think outside of the box from time to time. There are a million things that can be discovered, if we just think outside of the box for a moment.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 02, 2009, 11:43:40 PM
Look! Time is energy, without energy there could be no time! I wish that you would think about this before you answer to early, without energy time would stand still!
Energy is work, Time is work! Time is event!
Jerry ;)
I totally agree. ;D
Ok Ok Ok I give up. It is like talking to a wall. Do you actually go back and read the text to see what you say. I made no reference to flux. you did. But You just described in your last comment that space is expanding into the nothingness, but that is the thing. Space is the nothingness and is allready there. And time is energy energy is time??? That is a load of you know what.
Quote from: tournamentdan on June 30, 2009, 08:34:40 PM
I was referring to this comment about the distance not having mass. Time does not create flux it does not create a sound wave. Time is not real. It is only a measurement There is no past only memories.
Here is your reference to the flux in response to my comparison. Is this not a reference to flux? I made no reference to Time creating a flux or Time creating a sound wave in my comparison. This sound wave thing, that disturbs me even more, since the comparison had nothing to do with sound waves.
You took it upon yourself in saying these things that were based on a comparison, that you totally missed the point on.
Here's the link:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6157.msg188864#msg188864
Quote from: tournamentdan on July 03, 2009, 06:38:25 PM
Space is the nothingness and is allready there. And time is energy energy is time??? That is a load of you know what.
Without Time nothing would happen. It takes a force or energy to make something happen, and this energy or force is Time.
Nothingness would have no distance or space-time associated with it. How can nothingness take up space or have a distance to it? That is the load of you know what!
I once believed as you did, that time was just a measurement and was a man made concept. This was due to a lack of knowledge and understanding of the basic elementary truths of the universe.
The whole theory of relativity is based on this one principal alone, that space-time are linked together and Time causes the speed of light to be Constant in all frames, since time is variable.
Without this basic truth, you can not move on to more complex things that are governed or based on this elementary truth.
Hopefully we can set aside our differences on the subject and still learn from each other. I mean you no disrespect.
Peace,
GB
Gravity block I have read some of your posts.I guess I should say that a rotating electromagnetic field such as what occurs with a macro rodin coil would have a rotating electric field vector with it
or it could be a pulsing motion.Space would be stessed as a result and the flow of time slowed down.Much like a rocket traveling at the speed of light.Time slows down to a craw for anyone inside the rocket.Something I learned a couple of nights ago.PBS presented a T.V. special"400 years of the telescope" and mentioned that "Space " can be thought of as constantly expanding.So That cubic inch of space you had in the morning might be bigger in the evening?I wonder what kind of wonders could be done with that knowledge?Triffid
Quote from: triffid on July 05, 2009, 02:05:18 AM
Gravity block I have read some of your posts.I guess I should say that a rotating electromagnetic field such as what occurs with a macro rodin coil would have a rotating electric field vector with it
or it could be a pulsing motion.Space would be stessed as a result and the flow of time slowed down.Much like a rocket traveling at the speed of light.Time slows down to a craw for anyone inside the rocket.Something I learned a couple of nights ago.PBS presented a T.V. special"400 years of the telescope" and mentioned that "Space " can be thought of as constantly expanding.So That cubic inch of space you had in the morning might be bigger in the evening?I wonder what kind of wonders could be done with that knowledge?Triffid
Here's something for you to think about in regards to the rotating electric field. When a magnet is spinning on it's axis, then the affects are that the magnetic field is stationary in space and does not rotate with the magnet.
If the magnetic field is uniform in a rotating electric field, then it may not stress space since the magnetic field appears to be stationary in space. This is mind boggling. Studying the homopolar motor/generator suggests that the magnetic field does not rotate with the magnet when spinning on it's axis, even though the electrons are spinning.
I believe this affect has something to do with Time and Space, but I haven't quite narrowed it down yet. The magnetic field will be uniform at every point in space within the rotating electric field and would not be changing in time to cause space to be stressed, even though the electric field is rotating. LOL
I'm just not sure if the results would be the same with the rodin coils as with the homopolar disks. My thoughts at the moment would be the magnetic field would be stationary in space and not moving with the rotating electric field in a Rodin coil. This would be an interesting experiment!
READ THIS. THESE ARE YOUR OWN COMMENTS.
Quote from: gravityblock on June 30, 2009, 08:01:37 AM
I have never said that Time has mass. Just because it doesn't have mass, doesn't mean mass can't affect it or that it can't affect mass. The magnetic field of flux in a magnet doesn't have mass, but yet it is capable of repelling and attracting another magnet mass or attracting other metals.
So you see, you did make a comparison of the flux that a magnet makes and time. I never said that you said anything about a sound wave. I was just covering the rest of insanity that you may come up with. Because there is no time line, no time wave, no time ray. And since time also has no mass gravity or anything else can not manipulate time. Also there is no fabric of space, no molecules of space. Space is not made up of anything. So if it is nothing, it also can not be manipulated
Quote from: tournamentdan on July 05, 2009, 09:05:37 PM
READ THIS. THESE ARE YOUR OWN COMMENTS.So you see, you did make a comparison of the flux that a magnet makes and time. I never said that you said anything about a sound wave. I was just covering the rest of insanity that you may come up with. Because there is no time line, no time wave, no time ray. And since time also has no mass gravity or anything else can not manipulate time. Also there is no fabric of space, no molecules of space. Space is not made up of anything. So if it is nothing, it also can not be manipulated
Yes I made a comparison. The comparison did not say that Time creates flux. The comparison says that something that is massless can affect something that has mass and vice versa. Since time is massless just like the magnetic flux, and the magnetic flux can affect mass, then time has the ability to affect mass even if it is massless. I made this comparison because you said that something that is massless can not affect something that has mass, which is part of your statement in your last post also. LOL. No where did I ever say that Time creates a flux or a sound wave either directly, indirectly, symbolically, or in any other form whatsoever.
I talked about radio waves, and you thought a radio wave was a sound wave (a radio delivers sound, so it must be a sound wave is how you thinking). You wasn't trying to cover the rest of insanity that I may come up with. You just covering up your lack of knowledge.
There is another thread that supports your idea that mass can not slow time. That other thread is more inline with your thinking. You are just here so you can be a distraction.
I'll be glad when the kids are back in school from their summer vacation.
GB
Here's a video, on the first real time machine, from a physicist from the University of Connecticut on Time Travel. Dr. Ronald Mallett's work has been rigorously peer reviewed (the core of the Scientific Method).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ARLL9YBsk&feature=related 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-UTspAKPWw&feature=related 2 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EnXvS1yBIQ&feature=related 3 0f 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8CdOKf9YV0&feature=related 4 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMv8fpmEPfs&feature=related 5 of 5
If I remember correctly a homopolar generator has a metal disk that sits on top of a magnet.Then set into motion (spin it)with the disk sitting on top of the magnet and you get a voltage difference when you connect leads to the exact center of the now rotating disk and to the exact edge of the still spinning disk.It surprised me that the magnet could spin with the disk and stll generate a voltage.Since the disk somehow acts as a coil moving through a magnetic field like in regular generators but unlike regular generators the coil(the disk) moves with the magnetic field.So that made me wonder does a magnetic field coming from a permanent magnet spin on its own?Do magnetic lines of force rotate on their axis?(when ionized particles come into the earths magnetic field they have been seen traveling around and around the magnetic lines of force).This caused me to consider that each magnetic line in a magnetic field is rotating on its own axis.Play with some fishing line if you are having trouble seeing this in your head.I guess too a stationary magnetic field would be affected by changes in the earths magnetic field.Sunspots,etc could cause changes.Like lights dimming for a second or two then coming back on.Triffid
I made a interesting observation some time ago here with spinning lines of magnetic force.About three years ago I got two round salt boxes Like what you buy at the store all the time.I pretended they were big magnets.I sat both of them upright and labeled the top "N" and the bottom "S" with a big magic marker.I marked a spiral going in the same direction on top and bottom of the salt boxes.All two boxes had a spiral marked top and bottom.Now remember the line of force if it spins mantains the same direction of spin through out the saltbox(which is acting as our model here).So if your spirals are (hopefully) drawn correctly.When you put opposite poles together .You will see that the spirals(which you drew on a saltbox with a big black magic marker) go in the same direction so they merge into one another(they attract).But when I put same poles together the spirals went into opposite directions (they repel).So unlike poles attract and like poles repel.I believe this is due to the possibilty that they spin on their own axis.My models seem to suggest this.Triffid
Now this info is public domain.Better to put it here than anywhere else I guess.At least give me the credit if not the money.Triffid
@triffid
Homopolar motors slightly baffle me...for some reason I can't wrap my head around the way those work....cool suff man, at least there is still stuff to figure out about em....
@tournamentdan
Hey, no offence but I think ole gravity has got ya on this one , just try to take everything with a grain of salt, open up a little, don't get hung up on technicalities (distracting) just theories anyways, fun to think about! Don't get caught up in a pissing contest of who's wrong and who's right cause theres a good chance that we as a intelligent race (ha!) don't know our heads from our asses, the more you know, the more you should realize you don't know anything.....
@gb
In regards to time travel, I have been thinking why, if time travel was possible, do we not see people from the future etc., so I thought maybe to travel back in time you would need a time machine (duh!) and a time machine to travel too, so once time travel is invented you can go back only to previous points after its invention, neat to think about....
peace
@all
In Dr. Mallatt's time machine you could only travel back in time until the machine was first turned on, just like pyrodin has said.
I think there may be another way for a time machine, by traveling an Inverse Archimedes Spiral near the speed of light to open up a worm hole throat to the zero point dimension that leads to all Time and universes. This will not be possible until other technologies are perfected, and from my research those technologies are not too far away. You can think cuttingedge for this information, and it seems to be much inline with Dr. Mallatt's work as far as causing space-time to twist or bend into a loop which opens up a wormhole throat.
The difference between Cuttingedge's and Dr. Mallatt's time machine, is Cuttingedge's time machine itself is traveling into the future or the past with it's occupants, which means they could travel into the future or back into the past prior to the machine being turned on.
Dr. Mallett's work is trying to prove the concept with what is possible today with our current technology. The interesting thing to keep in mind, is the Relativity Theory of Einstein allows for this stuff to be possible.
Maybe some of the UFO's are from a future earth. Just a thought.
No, no, no, aliens and ufo's are just the decendents of Lilith, Adams first wife, who left the earth cause she was pissed about submissive sex positions(this is where "Lilith fair" womens rights stuff comes from)....... lol I dunno maybe future people messing with stuff......
-removed-
Quote from: gravityblock on July 05, 2009, 11:52:41 PM
Yes I made a comparison. The comparison did not say that Time creates flux. The comparison says that something that is massless can affect something that has mass and vice versa. Since time is massless just like the magnetic flux, and the magnetic flux can affect mass, then time has the ability to affect mass even if it is massless. I made this comparison because you said that something that is massless can not affect something that has mass, which is part of your statement in your last post also.
listen to this very carefully I am going to type this very slowly so you can understand. The magnetic flux of a magnet is kinda like any wave that you can think of, or ray. So it can be affected by gravity. But here is the tricky part. The one that you can not grasp.Time has no frequency because time is not made of any thing and it also does not move. It is only a measurement. You seem like you have some intelligence, but for some reason you can not get your imagination past star trek. It is time to get out on your own and move out of your mothers basement.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on July 06, 2009, 10:46:40 AM
@gb
In regards to time travel, I have been thinking why, if time travel was possible, do we not see people from the future etc., so I thought maybe to travel back in time you would need a time machine (duh!) and a time machine to travel too, so once time travel is invented you can go back only to previous points after its invention, neat to think about....
peace
GB, pay no attention to PYRODIN123321, I already have the plans derived from the basic instruction before leaving earth, I am just waiting my time.
maybe 2012. we will see. but I am pretty sure it is the correct date.
Hey GB, did you know that any religion that includes the Tree of life is a true religion and just about all religions have a tree of life wheel.
they all have the same saucer, down to the T.
I will release this info at this date, but until then hold your peace.
oh, PYRODIN123321 don't mind me, I am just loco, nobody knows more than you, right? I would love to see all your answers? or do you have any? or do you sit in stagnate waters?
I will absorb them like the tides upon a rock!
true and faithful.
Jerry ;)
Hey,check out Fiction(novels) written by Steve Alten.He talks some about Lilith(so called Adams first wife) and goes into great detail about what happened to her after she left the garden of Eden.Stuff I never heard about before.I'm reading "resurrection" by him now.It s the one with details about Lilith.Triffid
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 06, 2009, 10:30:14 PM
GB, pay no attention to PYRODIN123321, I already have the plans derived from the basic instruction before leaving earth, I am just waiting my time.
??? though I think you shouldn't pay too much attention, as I am not a true believer of real time travel, I like to entertain the ideas and find out what is possible.....but no attention :-\
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on July 06, 2009, 10:30:14 PM
oh, PYRODIN123321 don't mind me, I am just loco, nobody knows more than you, right? I would love to see all your answers? or do you have any? or do you sit in stagnate waters
I am not sure what you mean?
Did I offend you?
"nobody knows more than you, right?"- of course...
All my answers? To what questions?
why does mass slow time?
I dunno I think maybe the spin of atoms and electrons and such, but I'm here to find that out I guess...
sorry Pyro.
to much drinky drinky last night.
one of the copper scrolls has been found by the dead sea of Jericho and that scroll tells where the other scrolls are.
it was a (clay)vessel of fine copper(scroll).
Now!
Ezr:8:27: Also twenty basons of gold, of a thousand drams; and two vessels of fine copper, precious as gold.
there are "two" vessels, the other wasn't found yet. there are things that will not be known if the second copper scroll is not found.
it is strange, Timothy talks about visiting a copper smith, was he apart of this?
2Tm:4:14: Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
there is more to this story then meets the eye!
copper is only mentioned twice in the KJ's
Jerry ;)
lol.... :D
I was learning a little tonight how steel is made.They were talking a little about how iron atoms form a crystal lattice.When a piece of iron is broken in half these lattices become twisted and deformed.I thought maybe these broken pieces could be used in some sort of zero energy research.Maybe the quantum energy washing over the edges like waves on a shore could made to do useful work?Triffid
Here's a YouTube video from someone who thinks the electromagnetic waves are helical. Don't pay attention to the video. Read the information describing the video on the right hand side. I will also copy and paste it below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYnR_uCOFbI
Description of Video:
The true nature of light. Photons (electromagnetic radiation) follow a helical path through spacetime. The diameter of the helix is also approximately equal to the wavelength. This will explain the 2-slit experiment. Particles also move in the helix fashion, therefor, explaining the wave nature of particles and quantum tunneling.
"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen. (appearances)" -Erwin Schroedinger
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 09, 2009, 04:34:02 AM
"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen. (appearances)" -Erwin Schroedinger
I'll have to agree with this. The question is, what is causing the structure of space to have different shapes and variations within it to allow for material bodies and forces.
Since space and time are linked together, then it must be time that is causing the variations within space to have different shapes, appearances, and forces.
There is only one force in the universes and that one force is Time. All other things are different manifestations of this one force.
Thanks Wilby for your thoughts. They may lead you and I to different conclusions, but there is a lot of truth in those words you wrote, whatever that truth may be.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on July 09, 2009, 05:46:01 AM
I'll have to agree with this. The question is, what is causing the structure of space to have different shapes and variations within it to allow for material bodies and forces.
my best guess would be that quantum wave motions are the underlying cause of time (and matter).
thanks for your thoughts GB. i think you would enjoy paul davies book 'superforce', it's a bit dated but a fascinating read. if you've read it already my apologies.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 09, 2009, 06:53:50 AM
my best guess would be that quantum wave motions are the underlying cause of time (and matter).
thanks for your thoughts GB. i think you would enjoy paul davies book 'superforce', it's a bit dated but a fascinating read. if you've read it already my apologies.
I'm going to buy this book. Thanks for the info.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on July 09, 2009, 05:46:01 AM
There is only one force in the universes and that one force is Time. All other things are different manifestations of this one force.
GB,
Sorry to keep raining on your parade. But it's pretty clear you don't know even know what a Force is... Time is not a force. Heck... Gravity isn't even a real force according to Einstein. You're just spewing more random thoughts again as if they are facts..
Quote from: newbie123 on July 09, 2009, 10:49:40 AM
GB,
Sorry to keep raining on your parade. But it's pretty clear you don't know even know what a Force is... Time is not a force. Heck... Gravity isn't even a real force according to Einstein. You're just spewing more random thoughts again as if they are facts..
In physics, a force is a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to
change its velocity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force . This is a poor definition of a force.
If you lie on the floor and I apply 100,000 lbs of pressure against you, then your velocity would not change and you being made flat as a pancake would not be considered a force. LOL
If I applied 5,000 lbs of pressure against you for 1/100,000 of a second, then you may live. If I applied 5,000 lbs of pressure against you for 1 hour, then I am sure you would not survive.
If you can tell me that Time is not a force after this experiment, then I will accept it as fact. Time being a force is much more complicated than this, but I think this will be the only way for you to understand that Time is a force.
Physics don't even define things properly. Here's my definition of a force, "a force has the ability to affect or cause a change in a system".
So, stop raining on my parade, and let's do the experiment.
Quote from: gravityblock on July 10, 2009, 02:53:14 AM
In physics, a force is a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force . This is a poor definition of a force.
If you lie on the floor and I apply 100,000 lbs of pressure against you, then your velocity would not change and you being made flat as a pancake would not be considered a force. LOL
If I applied 5,000 lbs of pressure against you for 1/100,000 of a second, then you may live. If I applied 5,000 lbs of pressure against you for 1 hour, then I am sure you would not survive.
If you can tell me that Time is not a force after this experiment, then I will accept it as fact. Time being a force is much more complicated than this, but I think this will be the only way for you to understand that Time is a force.
Physics don't even define things properly. Here's my definition of a force, "a force has the ability to affect or cause a change in a system".
So, stop raining on my parade, and let's do the experiment.
What I say really doesn't matter... I'm not the authority on physics. The 100000s of physics who collaborate, experiment and publish their findings and data are...
But if you (and others here) want to keep playing fantasy world physics here, I'll leave you all alone... Cuz I'm getting tired of correcting everyones misinformation.
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 10:33:03 AM
But if you (and others here) want to keep playing fantasy world physics here, I'll leave you all alone... Cuz I'm getting tired of correcting everyones misinformation.
I'm not playing fantasy world physics. I want to do a real world experiment so you can see that Time is a force.
Before you take the splinter out of your brother's eye, take the 2 x 4 out of your own eye first. Everyone is spreading misinformation except YOU, is how you thinking! LOL.
I can support everything I've said with good references, not random youtube videos... Can you do the same?
I've asked you to provide references at least 10 times, and not one was from a university physics book or article...
If gravity is caused by the curve of spacetime, I can see how time might be considered a force.
Newb, this is a scientific type forum so physics is a hot topic, but you got to admit 10000s of physicists agree that overunity is impossible, but here you are and here I am and all the others, going against a lot of proved physics...
(off topic)
Anybody know Chinese?
peace
Quote from: gravityblock on July 10, 2009, 02:53:14 AM
In physics, a force is a push or pull that can cause an object with mass to change its velocity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force . This is a poor definition of a force.
If I applied 5,000 lbs of pressure against you for 1/100,000 of a second, then you may live. If I applied 5,000 lbs of pressure against you for 1 hour, then I am sure you would not survive.
If you can tell me that Time is not a force after this experiment, then I will accept it as fact.
WOW!!! That is the worst thought out of you yet. Think about this for just one second. Time is not a force especially in your comparison. The reason that you may live if you apply 5,000 lbs of pressure for 1/100,000 of a second is because the 5,000 lbs weight will not travel as far as it will in one hour. It may only move 1/100,000 of a inch which would not crush you. Please think about what you type before you type it.
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on July 10, 2009, 11:09:04 AM
Newb, this is a scientific type forum so physics is a hot topic
PYRO,
I suggest you go read the definition of scientific and then think about it..... This forum is absolutely not scientific at all in general.
Quote
but you got to admit 10000s of physicists agree that overunity is impossible, but here you are and here I am and all the others, going against a lot of proved physics...
Isn't nuclear fusion considered overunity? And all scientists recognize this... But magnet motors & gravity wheels are considered myths and BS for good reason....
â€"adjective 1. of or pertaining to science or the sciences: scientific studies. (yes)
2. occupied or concerned with science: scientific experts. (maybe)
3. regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science: scientific procedures. (ehhh no..)
4. systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science (also ehhh...no)
;) lol, I kinda agree, not much method to the madness....
Also overunity is kinda a bad term for this stuff anyway, you can only achieve overunity if your doing your math wrong or you have some energy source that's unaccounted for, and that's what we are looking for really...
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on July 10, 2009, 01:57:13 PM
Also overunity is kinda a bad term for this stuff anyway, you can only achieve overunity if your doing your math wrong or you have some energy source that's unaccounted for, and that's what we are looking for really...
Really what you guys are trying to do is disprove the most solid, proven and tested physics theories out there... Which is fine, imo, but the chances of doing this are so slim it's not even funny....
Many, many, experiments have been done by professional scientists in multi million dollar labs, and every once in a while, they'll find a scientific anomaly... And document it the best they can... I don't think E=mc^2 as ever been found to be flawed.
So, if you were to somehow create energy without nuclear reactions.. You would most likely be creating matter out of thin air (and showing at least 4 fundamental physics theories are seriously flawed at the same)..
It's funny though... Assuming one of the many FE devices talked about here really works, the chances that they're doing a nuclear reaction is millions, billions, even trillions times more likely than a "new energy source" ... And why everyone chooses to overlook well known science (or think it's a big conspiracy) is a mystery to me..
" And why everyone chooses to overlook well known science (or think it's a big conspiracy) is a mystery to me.."
how bout some quotes from Dostoevsky ;)
"I admit that two times two makes four is an excellent thing, but if we are going to praise everything, two times two makes five is sometimes also a very charming little thing."
-- Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground
"I will admit that reason is a good thing. No argument about that. But reason is only reason, and it only satisfies man's rational requirements. Desire, on the other hand, is the manifestation of life itself -- of all of life -- and it encompasses everything from reason down to scratching oneself."
-- Dostoevsky, Notes from Underground
Quotes from back in the late 1800s... Ok..
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 10:45:10 AM
I can support everything I've said with good references, not random youtube videos...
really? like that part about the moving flashlight and the speed of light being constant? over there on that other thread where i had to correct you? wanna support that statement?
i suppose the electron is a particle and maxwell's electrodynamics are a complete theory also? ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 10, 2009, 04:49:53 PM
really? like that part about the moving flashlight and the speed of light being constant? over there on that other thread where i had to correct you? wanna support that statement?
Sure..
The speed of light in constant and independent of the motion of the observer.... (this includes accelerating systems)
Here's a summery of an experiment on it..... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B
John Baez is pretty sharp mathematical physicist .. See what he has to say about it:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
(I haven't read the whole thing yet... If anyone can find issues with a physics theory, he probably can)
Here's another reference that explains how a fast moving flashlight will appear different colors depending on the approaching observer(s) velocity (or acceleration, i don't think it matters)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
i think you are confused. sr/gr is a theory... one with lots of holes.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 10, 2009, 06:32:47 PM
i think you are confused. sr/gr is a theory... one with lots of holes.
List them... What are the holes? Just because you can't comprehend a theory, doesn't mean it has holes..
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 06:47:48 PM
List them... What are the holes? Just because you can't comprehend a theory, doesn't mean it has holes..
epr paradox, then see bells theorem. then
maybe read a book.
look, it is an empirical fact that we observe a redshift with distance. it is a
theoretical interpretation that the redshift is due to a doppler shift / receding velocity, thus the universe is expanding. furthermore, while it is an empirical fact that the velocity of light is always measured to be the same, it is a
theoretical interpretation that the velocity of light is constant (a subtle but important difference).
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 10, 2009, 06:49:23 PM
epr paradox, then see bells theorem. then maybe read a book.
look, it is an empirical fact that we observe a redshift with distance. it is a theoretical interpretation that the redshift is due to a doppler shift / receding velocity, thus the universe is expanding...
What do you think is causing the redshifts? You must have a better theory with even more experimental evidence to back it..
Btw, The EPR paradox doesn't really relate to what we are discussing in this thread... Are you trying to turn this agrument into QM verse Relativistic mechanics now? I'm starting to remember our previous conversation and your idiotic troll-like arguments...
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 07:03:47 PM
Btw, The EPR paradox doesn't really relate to what we are discussing in this thread... Are you trying to turn this agrument into QM verse Relativistic mechanics now? I'm starting to remember our previous conversation and your idiotic troll-like arguments...
you asked for holes, don't cry about it...
no, just correcting your mistakes.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on July 10, 2009, 07:07:04 PM
you asked for holes, don't cry about it...
Explain how the EPR paradox is directly related to flaws in GR or and SR... The EPR was a paper explaining possible flaws in quantum mechanics...
So I'm just calling Bull Shit on you... Not really crying about it..
Quote from: newbie123 on July 10, 2009, 09:04:13 PM
Explain how the EPR paradox is directly related to flaws in GR or and SR... The EPR was a paper explaining possible flaws in quantum mechanics...
So I'm just calling Bull Shit on you... Not really crying about it..
i explained it in the other thread you are trolling. and as i said there, do you own due diligence.
Energy/Mass slows Time, which causes Space to be curved around the mass and is gravity.
If Energy/Mass increased Time, then the Space would be curved the other way or curved away from the mass, which would be anti-gravity.
If Energy/mass didn't affect Time, then the Space would be straight and not curved, which would be no gravity.
@gravityblock
QuoteEnergy/Mass slows Time, which causes Space to be curved around the mass and is gravity.
Or space may appear to be curved due to the difference in density of space which is gravity not unlike the refraction of light when looking through water.
QuoteIf Energy/Mass increased Time, then the Space would be curved the other way or curved away from the mass, which would be anti-gravity.
If time was constant but the rate of change or oscillation in mass and it's associated field changed with density and velocity then the illusion that time was variable would not be apparent as all measurement devices are made of this same matter and subject to the same effects.
QuoteIf Energy/mass didn't affect Time, then the Space would be straight and not curved, which would be no gravity.
I don't believe time is something it is a measurement of something, if there was no matter could there be time or measurement?. Does it sound more reasonable that the rate of time can change or that our perception of time can change and that the rate of change in mass is subject to change? Is space curved or has a variable density within space bent light producing the illusion that space has curved not unlike a common lens?.
I cannot say any of this is true but I like to keep an open mind about things, as well I think any effects should have a firm basis in nature and not based strictly on mathematics.
Regards
AC
@allcanandian:
If we didn't use time in our measurements, then I believe this wouldn't be so hard to grasp. Since mankind is using time as a measurement, then it possibly can't be more than this.....LOL
There is good reason why mass is said to curve space-time in Relativity. You are correct, the space is not literally curved. It only appears to be curved because other objects follow a curved path through that space. Only objects with mass will follow a curved trajectory path. Anything that is massless would follow a straight path through that space. As far as mass is concerned, the space is curved. The space is curved due to the different energy densities in the surrounding space due to the large mass affecting Time. Energy and mass can affect space-time, because energy and mass is made up of space and time.
As far as I am concerned there is only one force in the universe, and that is Time. Time, space, energy, and mass are the same thing, they are just different manifestations of each other. When there are no fluctuations in Time, then you only have Time. When there are fluctuations in Time, then you have space and time. When there are fluctuations in space and time, then you have energy. When there are fluctuations in space, time, and energy, then you have mass.
Water, ice, and steam are the same thing, just different manifestations of each other, just like space-time, energy-mass.
You can't have space without fluctuations in time. You can't have energy without fluctuations in space and time. You can't have mass without fluctuations in space, time, and energy. <<---- This is the key to understanding the universe. They are all related to each other. They are just wearing different hats.
You can't fool mother nature, but it is mother nature who is doing the fooling.
Time does not slow. It's a wrong interpretation of inaccurate experiments. It's actually the length contraction that is real (Lorentz) and not only observable.
Quote from: Overmind on July 27, 2009, 06:13:43 AM
Time does not slow. It's a wrong interpretation of inaccurate experiments. It's actually the length contraction that is real (Lorentz) and not only observable.
The factor originally devised by Dutch Physicist H. A. Lorentz to transform distance and time measurements between two moving observers so that Maxwell’s equations would give the same results for both was later expanded upon by Einstein for use in his Special Theory of Relativity.
Einstein’s velocity composition formula involves acceleration and not uniform motion as stated in his theory,
http://www.mrelativity.net/MBriefs/Einstein%27s%20Biggest%20Mistake,%20Acceleration%20Composition.htm .
This is where it gets weird. An observer at rest viewing an object traveling at the speed of light would observe the length of the object in the direction of motion as zero.
If this is true, then it should be true for a laser beam also, since the laser beam is traveling at the speed of light. If a laser beam is on for 1 second, then it's length would be calculated to be 186,000 miles. It doesn't have a length of zero as stated by the Lorentz Factor. Why not?
Because the laser beam is actually accelerating towards infinity and the Lorentz Factor is based on the speed of light having a constant speed. If the Lorentz Factor was based on acceleration instead of velocity then the laser beam's relative velocity to light would be zero, and the laser beam would be 186,000 miles in length and not have a length of zero. There is no length contraction when you take acceleration into account. Length contraction is not real.
The laser beam experiment suggests that Lorentz didn't take into account acceleration. Einstein’s formula appears at best to be an elegant solution for acceleration composition and not velocity composition. Both Einstein and Lorentz made the same mistake. Since the magnitude of the acceleration is slowing as it's speed is increasing towards infinity, then the speed appears to be uniform and not changing at C, thus Einstein's formula is based on acceleration and not velocity. Only over large distances, the affects are noticeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomalyGB
Sir, it does not matter what the observer observes, because it observes via light (speed of light) that is subjected to the same length contraction as the observed object. The speed of light was assumed constant but this is not the case.The constancy of the speed of light is based on a measurement which is faulty from the principle. The speed of light was actually measured with itself because lengths were used. Since the speed of light is proportional to the measured length, you cannot directly detect that it's variable (c~r).
If the by Einstein postulated universality and constancy of the speed of light in reality doesn't exist at all, we in no way would be capable to register this; neither to observe nor to measure it. If for instance a light source is moved towards a receiving device or away from it, then the speeds will overlap, like for the passenger, who marches in a driving train against or in the driving direction through the corridor. For the ray of light also the fields, which influence the speed of light and the measurement equipment, overlap. As a consequence will a measuring technician, who himself is exposed to this overlapping field, always observe and "measure" the identical speed of light. The observer as a result imagines, there is an universality of the speed of light.
By deriving the time-dependent Schrodinger equation you will see that the speed of light determines the size of the elementary particles (This statement is incompatible with the assumption of a constant speed of light! Because then all elementary particles would have identical size. As is known, however, are the building parts of the atomic nucleus, the protons and neutrons very much smaller than individual electrons. The constancy of the speed of light is to be questioned. This question is of such an elementary importance that we are not content with these considerations and in addition undertake a mathematical derivation in the sense of the field approach).
The speed of light is field-dependent (E~1/c^2, H~1/c^2) ! - therefore not constant.
This already has been demonstrated experimentally. If you isolate light from the general cosmic field, it (the light) speeds up.
Everything I said is mathematically valid and physically testable.
The time difference relativity describes is an interpretation error and it can be proven so by an experiment with planes and cesium atomic clocks. If you set the planes to go east and west from a point of origin (p.o.o.), at the same range and planes speed there will be another time difference between east clock and p.o.o. and west clock and p.o.o.. That only means that the field lines of Earth influence the atomic clocks, therefore the relative time was just a miss-interpretation of observed results.
Quote from: Overmind on July 30, 2009, 02:08:08 AM
The time difference relativity describes is an interpretation error and it can be proven so by an experiment with planes and cesium atomic clocks. If you set the planes to go east and west from a point of origin (p.o.o.), at the same range and planes speed there will be another time difference between east clock and p.o.o. and west clock and p.o.o.. That only means that the field lines of Earth influence the atomic clocks, therefore the relative time was just a miss-interpretation of observed results.
Perform the same experiment in space where all outside influences are removed including gravity, and there will be no differences in the atomic clocks, as you suggest. I agree.
There will be differences in the atomic clocks if there speeds or mass are different. Gravity influences the atomic clocks. A Higher altitude clock will be ticking faster than a lower altitude clock. This is all proven. It's not a mis-interpretation of the observed results. The higher your energy is, the slower time will tick. Weather the energy is higher due to it's speed, due to it's mass, due to gravity, etc.....it makes no difference. Higher energy always ticks at a slower pace than a lower energy. It is your mis-interpretation that outside influences such as the field lines of earth are contaminating the experiments which gives different results in the atomic clocks. There is no contamination from these outside influences. The outside influences either raise or lower the energy within a system, which affects the atomic clocks. This means Time is directly proportional to energy and mass. You can't have one without the other. When you have 99% energy, then you have 1% time. When you have 99% time, then you have 1% energy. When something increases, then something else must decrease. No mis-interpretation here on my part. Your not considering how the outside influences can either raise or lower the energy in a system, which affects the rate at which time ticks.
It is not the time that is affected, but your tool which you measure it with.
Quote from: Overmind on July 30, 2009, 06:10:11 AM
It is not the time that is affected, but your tool which you measure it with.
I could say the same thing regarding length contraction. It is not the length that is affected, but your tool which you measure it with.
If the atomic clock is running slower within a system such as a spacecraft relative to another spacecraft's atomic clock, then what makes you think the rest of the system or spacecraft is not slowing down also relative to the other spacecraft. If the atomic clock in a spacecraft is slowing down, then the entire system or spacecraft is slowing down at the same rate that is representative of the atomic clock.
The tool you are using to measure is not based on a constant value, but is based on a value that is variable according to it's energy. The atomic clock is representative of the amount of energy within the system that determines the variable's value. This variable's value will give you the speed of light to be 186,000 mps regardless of your speed, since the speed you are traveling at will influence the amount of energy within the system that affected the atomic clock, which is used to determine the variable's value. If the tool is being affected by Time according to it's energy, then both the Time and the Tool is being affected, and not just the tool.
Blame it on the tool. LOL
Quote from: gravityblock on July 30, 2009, 07:00:09 AM
If the atomic clock in a spacecraft is slowing down, then the entire system or spacecraft is slowing down at the same rate that is representative of the atomic clock.
That is totally incorrect. A clock reading means nothing (even for atomic clocks) if the respective clock is not totally isolated from any possible field or interference.
Quote from: gravityblock on July 30, 2009, 07:00:09 AM
I could say the same thing regarding length contraction. It is not the length that is affected, but your tool which you measure it with.
Depends on the tool. A tool that uses length or light to do the measure will be influenced, yes, just like it was with speed of light experiments. A tool that uses something different, will not be influenced, therefore it will correctly measure.
You cannot use atomic clocks to correctly/accurately measure time differences because their functionality is influenced by the overlaping fields. The so called observation that time is faster or slower is one of the many possible interpretations and is not by far the most simple or most logical of them all.
Relativity and quantum physics fail to explain a very large number of things related to the matter and energy, therefore postulating and inventing something just because there has to be soemthing there that gives the observed effect (having no mathematical validation for the invented stuff).
But an objecive theory could explain a lot of the unknowns of the current physics an have the theoretical support while concuring with the already conducted and interpreted experiments.
So from a relative p.o.v.:
- things are different for each observer (FAIL: if each one observes differently, which observation is real ?)
- a lot of basic elements of the current physics cannot be explained (I can give plenty of examples)
- a theory of everything is not possible
- some key elements of important ecuations were nullified (without demonstrating that the respective elements are always null)
- some calculations are adapted to suit miss-interpreted observations (like Einstein did with time)
- 't' is variable, 'c' is constant (FAIL: already proven variable)
From an objective p.o.v.:
- universallity prevails (the observer's p.o.v. is irrelevant and at most localized)
- almost if not everything in the current physics can be explained
- a total theory (unified theory) is possible (all fields can be unified if you get back to the roots of physics)
- some key elements of important ecuations were re-introduced (enableing mathematical confirmations of the physics behind them)
- calculations are not adapted but compared with different interpretations of observations (when direct observations are possible)
- 't' is constant (it was defined so after all), 'c' is variable (confirmed experimentally)
Quote from: Overmind on July 30, 2009, 10:58:07 AM
That is totally incorrect. A clock reading means nothing (even for atomic clocks) if the respective clock is not totally isolated from any possible field or interference.
The amount of aether in a system determines how fast or slow the atoms are oscillating. Anything that has the ability to disturb the aether can interfere with the atomic clocks which measures how much time has passed by the number of oscillations. If the respective clock was totally isolated from any possible field or interference of the aether within that system, then of course it would not slow or speed up.
Time is the aether. The aether permeates all space. A large mass causes a displacement of this aether around it, which causes a Time gradient around the mass due to the disturbances in the aether. Mass follows the path of least resistance, which is the path of least Time. A large mass will have less aether than a smaller mass which will cause the atoms to tick at a slower rate than the smaller mass, thus Time is running slower for the larger mass.
If all of the atoms in your body is ticking or oscillating at a very slow rate, then it may take you several years to read this post. If they are ticking at a very fast rate, then it may take you a minute to read this post. It is irrelevant weather the atoms in your body are ticking at a slower rate due to interference or not, the result will be the same, which is a change in the rate at which things can occur or at the rate which Time ticks in that system. The amount of aether in a system determines the rate at which things can occur, which is Time or energy.
Time is the aether. Time is energy.
GB
Basic particle oscillation rate does not influence time. If it would, that would mean a blue laser beam would have different speed then a red laser beam because of the different rates of the oscillations of the photons that compose them.
Quote from: Overmind on August 27, 2009, 07:10:14 AM
Basic particle oscillation rate does not influence time. If it would, that would mean a blue laser beam would have different speed then a red laser beam because of the different rates of the oscillations of the photons that compose them.
Exactly, the same speed with different rates of oscillations means Time is not ticking the same. If Time did tick at the same rate for the different oscillations of the photons in a laser, then they would have different speeds.
A gamma ray has more energy than a radio wave, but yet they travel at the same speed, this is due to the photons of the gamma rays ticking at a slower rate, thus it takes more Time to cover the same distance of linear space due to the oscillations of the photons.
GB
Quote from: Overmind on July 30, 2009, 10:58:07 AM
'c' is variable (confirmed experimentally)
I've always thought the speed of light in vacuum is constant (even through different mediums, but propagation rate varies) ... Are you referring to casmir effects on light? Do you have a reference?
Quote from: gravityblock on August 27, 2009, 08:45:21 AM
A gamma ray has more energy than a radio wave, but yet they travel at the same speed, this is due to the photons of the gamma rays ticking at a slower rate, thus it takes more Time to cover the same distance of linear space due to the oscillations of the photons.
As I determined so far, if the energy is different, space is not the same anymore, therefore the distance required to be covered will be different.
Quote from: newbie123 on August 27, 2009, 11:00:02 AM
I've always thought the speed of light in vacuum is constant (even through different mediums, but propagation rate varies) ... Are you referring to casmir effects on light? Do you have a reference?
The speed of light in vacuum is given by the General Cosmic Filed that in outer space is next to constant. However, each time you have anything near-by that adds additional overlapping field, the speed differs. For example, the speed of light in vacuum near the Sun is different from the speed of light in vacuum at two light years away from the Sun. There is no direct way to observe this because the tools with which you observe are affected by the same overlapping field that modifies the speed of light.
To give a simple example: let's way you want to measure the length dilation of a rail road when the outside temperature is 30C above the normal one. If you have a one meter steel bar that you measure the rail road with, when you do the measurement at standard temperature you will get a value of 'x' (let's say x times 1 meter equals the rail road length). If you measure a T+30C, you will get the same result 'x' because the steel bar will suffer the same length dilation as the rail road.
If you want to correctly measure this way, you must isolate the steel bar form the environment temperature.
This is similar for the light. If you want to measure length contractions and light speeds, you will have to isolate the whole measurement system from the General Cosmic Field present in all space because otherwise you will get a constant value every time you measure, just like they actually did with the speed of light (that why it's being assumed it's a constant in space).
So, getting back to the topic, mass does not alter time, but it modifies space length so that's why an object will take a different amount of time to get to the same destination - because it no longer travels the same amount of space.
Quote from: Overmind on August 27, 2009, 11:49:02 AM
However, each time you have anything near-by that adds additional overlapping field, the speed differs. For example, the speed of light in vacuum near the Sun is different from the speed of light in vacuum at two light years away from the Sun.
This is incorrect. The speed of light is constant (and has been shown to be constant experimentally) near the sun or 2 light years away from sun.. The wavelength will shift (red/blue) depending on the gravitational well around the photon.. A photon near the sun will have less energy (less wavelength) than the same photon further away from the sun... BUT the velocity of the photon remains the same... This is well known.
"General Cosmic Field" Is this a term you made up?
It's not well known...it's incorrectly measured.
The new tunneling experiments prove that the speed of light is not constant.
The General Cosmic Field is the equivalent of the term 'Aether' used by the scientists long time ago and it's formed of all the overlapping fields in the Universe.