Let's Discuss Time Travel

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: chr0naut

One particular experiment was to synchronize two atomic clocks and then raise and then lower one of them by a significant distance. This then subjects the raised clock to a lower gravitational field. The clocks are then compared and raised and lowered clock proves to have run slower than the other one.

Lol GR is blind leading the blind. have you even thought why the clocks read what you have posted? I think not. But here is why

GR is all bunk. Time speeds up in higher gravity and vice versa.
but in the expt you cited the upper clock actually is erroneously reading faster time. this is because in conditions of time dilation, the caesium atom and the associated electronics in the clock are putting out a higher freq than normal. hence it records faster time, but in fact the ambient time at the upper clock is slower.

hope this will open your eyes to bunk GR

originally posted by: Quantum12
a reply to: Privy_Princess

I tried this but got nowhere. I was sad!

I made a tiny architectural model of the Time Machine for some art school friends.

Wow, was that long ago...

Which demonstrates the principle that; the closest thing we have to time travel is our own memory.

It sort of plays into the quantum computer brain / holographic universe, but without going off the crazy train.

It's here, it's now. Use it.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: chr0naut

One particular experiment was to synchronize two atomic clocks and then raise and then lower one of them by a significant distance. This then subjects the raised clock to a lower gravitational field. The clocks are then compared and raised and lowered clock proves to have run slower than the other one.

Lol GR is blind leading the blind. have you even thought why the clocks read what you have posted? I think not. But here is why

GR is all bunk. Time speeds up in higher gravity and vice versa.
but in the expt you cited the upper clock actually is erroneously reading faster time. this is because in conditions of time dilation, the caesium atom and the associated electronics in the clock are putting out a higher freq than normal. hence it records faster time, but in fact the ambient time at the upper clock is slower.

hope this will open your eyes to bunk GR

What could be changing the oscillation frequency of Cesium-133? Surely if no environmental effects change then the clock should not oscillate at a different frequency. If all other effects are eliminated, except for gravity, then the effect must be relative to gravity.

Someone at higher gravity sees the time of those in lower gravity as passing faster. From the reference point of those in lower gravity, the person in higher gravity slows down. This is the reverse of what you describe.

This is the relativity bit of general relativity. The perception is relative to your reference frame. Both people believe 'their' own personal time is passing normally.

Consider someone falling into a black hole. As they fall in, if they could survive, they could watch the entire history of the universe before hitting the singularity. Similarly from someone watching from outside the black hole, the person falling into it would appear to slow down towards the event horizon and stop totally when they reach it.

GR has been validated again and again to very high numerical precision. I know of no data, engineering measurement or experimental result, that proves an exception to it (but that is probably just showing the limitation of my knowledge).

For instance, our GPS system of positional satellites could not work at all without it. It is hardly bunk.

a reply to: chr0naut

when you dilate ie stretch the time vector, you can superimpose more number of cycles on it, hence higher freq.
it is alleged that gps uses gr, but in actual fact gps does not use anything from gr in any way shape or form. talk to gps manufacturers for enlightenment.

these various expts that you are probably aware of, are all designed and interpretted to keep the gr dogma alive and people blind.

i wont be surprised if the illuminnati together with entities not of this earth helped einstein come up with gr for their twisted agenda

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

when you dilate ie stretch the time vector, you can superimpose more number of cycles on it, hence higher freq.
it is alleged that gps uses gr, but in actual fact gps does not use anything from gr in any way shape or form. talk to gps manufacturers for enlightenment.

these various expts that you are probably aware of, are all designed and interpretted to keep the gr dogma alive and people blind.

i wont be surprised if the illuminnati together with entities not of this earth helped einstein come up with gr for their twisted agenda

I agree that if you stretch the time vector, you can change frequency. The thing is, that in the reference frame of someone whose time is being dilated, the distance of four nano meters remains four nano meters and 12 nano seconds remains 12 nano seconds. Similarly, someone not in that reference frame, whose time is not dilated, can ascertain that distances don't change in the remote reference frame, either. The only thing that changes is the relative rate of flow of time.

GR explains it, the particular mathematics is called Lorentz Transformation.

Because GPS is based upon accurate clock systems, relativistic effects DO have a part to play. The atomic clocks in GPS satellites have been calculated to click slower than the same equipment on the ground. While the differences clock pulse by clock pulse are small, they are cumulative. It has been estimated that uncorrected errors due to time dilation could result in drift of up to 10 kilometers in accuracy per day. Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on relativistic effects on GPS systems.

there is an epic titor thread I must have 300 posts in here somehwere

don't go into it or you will lose a lot of time, lol

I time travel every night, about 6 hours

a reply to: chr0naut

Lol, i must say that gr is succeeding in making your mind go all topsy turvy. but to nip gr in the bud someone will have to go back in time and shoot einstein, b4 he came out with his bunk.

now you are observing 2 atomic clocks on a lab floor. the higher one shows a higher digital readout. atomic clocks are nothing but decade counters to count down the source local oscillator freq. so the higher atomic clock can only show a higher digital readout when its local oscillator freq increases.
now tell me where are you gonna stick your reference frames and lorentz transformations?
since gps receivers are used in space as well as on earth, have an empirically applied correction independent of any grs.
again talk to gps manufacturers to know the truth.
dont rely on wiki which is only there to keep dogmas alive

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol, i must say that gr is succeeding in making your mind go all topsy turvy. but to nip gr in the bud someone will have to go back in time and shoot einstein, b4 he came out with his bunk.

now you are observing 2 atomic clocks on a lab floor. the higher one shows a higher digital readout. atomic clocks are nothing but decade counters to count down the source local oscillator freq. so the higher atomic clock can only show a higher digital readout when its local oscillator freq increases.
now tell me where are you gonna stick your reference frames and lorentz transformations?
since gps receivers are used in space as well as on earth, have an empirically applied correction independent of any grs.
again talk to gps manufacturers to know the truth.
dont rely on wiki which is only there to keep dogmas alive

If you are suggesting that the distance a wave travels gets longer, allowing more waveforms to fit in and this is perceived as an increase in frequency (and therefore the clock counter has a larger number of clicks), then consider this the following reasoning: If a waveform were applied to traverse a greater distance, it will have a count of more wavelengths, but the size of the wavelength itself would remain the same.

Observers in any reference frame can verify that distance doesn't suddenly get bigger (or smaller).

The idea that the wavelength would be invariant while somehow the very space it operates across is stretched, is also contradictory.

The conclusion must be that time itself is variant for observed dimensional stability to exist. This is exactly what GR proposes.

The universe didn't begin operating this way because of Einstein, he merely deduced a little of the nature of its operation. Removing Einstein would not make the universe operate differently.

Consider also, others proofs of GR in:

1. The transit of Mercury.
   
2. The deflection of starlight around the Sun.
   
3. Gravitational lensing around massive stars.
   
4. Gravitational redshift.
   
5. Relativistic effects in Condensed Matter physics.
   
6. Measurement of delay in light travel time using Very Long Baseline Interferometry.
   
7. The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment.
   
8. The Cassini probe's relativistic effects measured using Very Long Baseline Interferometry in relation to its movement between Jupiter and Saturn.
   
9. Measurement of the distortion of the sky as seen through the Earth's gravity compared to that of the Hipparcos probe.
   
10. The detection of gravitational waves.
    
11. The Hubble constant.
    
12. Observations of binary pulsars.
    
13. Gravity probe A's proof of velocity and gravity affecting the accuracy of clocks.
    
14. Frame-dragging effects (Lense-Thirring progression) observed by Gravity Probe B.
    
15. The Mössbauer effect and Pound–Rebka experiment which measured the gravitational redshift of protons.
    
16. The Eötvös experiment that showed that inertial and gravitational mass are the same.
    

It isn't just GPS and atomic clocks that prove out GR. There is a lot of science and engineering that proves it.

a reply to: Toolman18

"You can't just travel through time. You also have to travel to the exact point in space for the time you wanted to travel. If not done completely perfectly, you most likely end up in deep space or fused into a solid object and die instantly."

Should we somehow ever manage to attain the ability/technological prowess to travel through time, then calculating the correct spatial coordinates so that the above does not happen would probably be mere child's play.

a reply to: chr0naut
A case in point, you are really gone topsy turrvy because of gr.
dont you know all the observations you cited have been interpreted to suit gr and you have not understood one bit about gps and atomic clocks.
well carry on and be misled by gr

Since time and space are related to the observer... which is realativity. Memory is an anchor in time. To all that have not seen this thread? It doesnt even exit yet it does... since creation date is the time to the OP it was created... GMT EST MWT PST who knows well that exists or doesnt because time may not have been a refference for its making. Any new person seeing for the first time is the time it actually starts existing to their relative time of existing or frame of refference... anyone knowing exists anchors it in time but an entire web of time that can catch others or create a net of local reality yet not existing in any specific time just a space with various nodes or knots of various times forming a neural net of awareness on forgetting or letting go... eventually that conceptual bubble degrades the more knots unravel at various times... denial of knowing existing but awareness it does is willful ignorance or trying to maintain a slice for oneself in separation instead of fusion... or matter becoming anti matter in a chosen bias for a particular affinity of matter depending on energy when neither are created or destroyed... one simply changes form and one simply gets contained in it whether theres affinity or not to that matter or form.

Either way bias of affinity or not it still goes on in this cycle of infinity always existing never existing but individual to each oberver in time and space in which it occurs relative to that frame of refference called memory... let it go and theres just a frame with no need for refference to simply observe experience itself with no net to deny just respectful awareness of their existance... deny and the black holes get too big and one gets caught in an ego net if the net is ego then one slips right by...

Dont mind my wiggling in all due respect just putting another knot in the net.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Lol just like the eu referendum, you are generating a reference frames psy ops

a reply to: Nochzwei

Um all thought requires a psychological operation unless mindless.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut
A case in point, you are really gone topsy turrvy because of gr.
dont you know all the observations you cited have been interpreted to suit gr and you have not understood one bit about gps and atomic clocks.
well carry on and be misled by gr

I have linked to a couple of websites that explain relativistic issues with GPS. You don't seem to have visited them.

GPS receivers, the hand held devices you are familiar with, do not have to account for relativistic drift as temporal effect of the satellite's height's are already accounted for in the fine tuning of satellites clock by dividing down the clock (remembering that the lower the gravity, the faster the clock), the user device does not need to do any relativistic calculation. The offset is not a simple single addition, it is a change in continual clock rate and will continue to accrue if not allowed for. The error compounds putting the clocks out more and more, the longer they are run.

If you tried to adjust for relativistic effects at the user device, rather than the satellite, you would have to speed-up the clock frequency, which is far more difficult than dividing it down as done on the satellite. Not to mention the high cost of doing this for each user device.

I actually enjoyed the spacetime physics subjects when I was at school & university. I suppose that it has prejudiced me towards GR for all these years since. Especially, when things like the detection of gravitational waves or another astronomical measurement once again prove the validity of General Relativity.

I'm also a bit critical of the Flat Earthers and Electric Universe crowds, neither of which seem to have progressed into high school level physics (which probably explains why they usually think Nicola Tesla is a big deal).

If you can, get a copy of "Spacetime Physics" by Wheeler and Taylor. It is a really good book that explains things in a clear and concise manner. I'm sure if you had a little knowledge of GR, then you'd have a different view. As a teaser, you could read the first chapter of "Spacetime Physics" here (it's only 22 pages and is a good introduction).

If you are more one of the YouTube generation, you could take a look at the "Minute Physics" channel. Here's one of theirs specifically on "GPS, relativity, and nuclear detection".

a reply to: chr0naut

hey mate enough of relativity. GR is all bunk and im not wasting my time on it, since i am the one that has proved GR wrong.
all on internet supporting GR is bunk. but be my guest and wallow in ignorance. besides ive been to the university and have a degree in engineering.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

hey mate enough of relativity. GR is all bunk and im not wasting my time on it, since i am the one that has proved GR wrong.
all on internet supporting GR is bunk. but be my guest and wallow in ignorance. besides ive been to the university and have a degree in engineering.

Please post a link to your papers or research which has proven GR wrong.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

hey mate enough of relativity. GR is all bunk and im not wasting my time on it, since i am the one that has proved GR wrong.
all on internet supporting GR is bunk. but be my guest and wallow in ignorance. besides ive been to the university and have a degree in engineering.

I'm calling you out as a liar. Prove me wrong.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

hey mate enough of relativity. GR is all bunk and im not wasting my time on it, since i am the one that has proved GR wrong.
all on internet supporting GR is bunk. but be my guest and wallow in ignorance. besides ive been to the university and have a degree in engineering.

Please post a link to your papers or research which has proven GR wrong.

www.scribd.com...

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

hey mate enough of relativity. GR is all bunk and im not wasting my time on it, since i am the one that has proved GR wrong.
all on internet supporting GR is bunk. but be my guest and wallow in ignorance. besides ive been to the university and have a degree in engineering.

I'm calling you out as a liar. Prove me wrong.

likewise. now get lost and read above link

a reply to: Nochzwei

General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915[2] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

So you debunked the above? Did you bother taking atomic decay into acount as the electrons shedded?

Special Relativity uses the smallest for the E=MC^2 so there is no shedding to take place ie: a Photon/electron for mass and the Planck Length for Time to produce the inverse square... so if you did not use atomic decay equations for your GR debunk?

Fail.