It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Discuss Time Travel

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

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...

I have read the above first paper link and looked at your YouTube video.

Firstly, from your paper, E=Mc^2 cannot be factored out to produce a time component as you claim to have done. The 'E' for energy is a variable which has no time component. 'M' for mass is a variable with no time component. The only bit that may possibly be considered to have a time factor is the 'c' value. But it is not a variable, it is a constant, a single invariant number. As such it is invalid to extract a time variable from it.

Similarly, you say it derives to sq.rt (which is nonsense) and that mass is proportional to time (which you cannot get from either equation). Also you say that if you negate mass, it is the same as negating gravity. In a formulaic sense, however, they are actually two different things. Mass is not Gravity.

The decay of vegetables and the oxidation of metals can proceed at vastly different rates depending upon many variables. As such, they are very poor indicators of the flow of time, and definitely useless as experimental proof of time dilation.

You said that the brightness of the candle was an indicator of a change in frequency due to time dilation but a change in frequency is indicated by a change in color, not brightness (amplitude). The candle burning faster is due to vibration (the noise which can be heard in the video) which aids vaporization of the wax and therefore increase in combustion.

The change in the scale readings and the depth gauge readings were most probably due to magnetization effects on the heavy angle iron supports to which they were attached. Definitely the apparatus had some sort of magnetic-electrical motor in it as attested by the electrical supply and the high rev. motor noise it was producing.

To suggest that a graph with only eight data points organized in two approximate lines to "actually depict 6 Spatial and 2 Time dimensions" is nutcase logic.

The two metal micro-graphs are also of two different metals (I worked in a metallurgical laboratory for some time in the past and have done thousands of such micro-graphs myself). The first one is most probably a mild steel with carbon inclusions (cheap steel) and the second is probably zinc (galvanized metal).

Time dilation, which you have said disproves Einsteinian Relativity, is fully explained by, and a function of it. It actually proves Relativity, contrary to your assertion.

Your second paper also makes the error of assuming that an increase of brightness indicates a higher frequency.

You also mention:
1. Fireworks get brighter as they ascend into the sky.
2. Airplanes Nav Lights, Beacon and strobes get brighter as the airplane ascends into the sky.
3. Two identical lit candles placed 3 meters one above the other in still air, show that, the higher candle is brighter and burns out faster.
4. A Flashlight again when moved 3 meters up also gets brighter.

These are all highly subjective without accurate measurement of brightness. The only one that is possibly valid is the candles burn rate, but again, lower air pressure with similar oxygen abundance means that the vaporization of the hot wax happens easier causing a hotter combustion for the candle at the greater height.

In no case have you proved or disproved anything in relation to Physics, neither theoretically nor in experiment.

edit on 26/6/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The speed of light isn't a constant but also a variable depending on it's vector in relation to gravitational fields... so be careful when saying such as the C when stated as a constant takes place in a vaccum with the G or gravitation as a control to calculate that speed. So the G is supposed to be a constant yet... Einstein being no fool he said maybe we will eventually get to see the effect of gravity and until then left it there... well we recently did detect that in wave form and will have a great chance to start getting a general idea of that gravitational calculation to a statistic that can be substituted as a close enough or constant to perform the calculation with much greater acuracy. In the E=MC^2 in relation to gravity we may soon be able to get a good handle on since we know it's a standing wave form we can find it's magnatude in relation to mass.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

according to einstein, gravity slows down time and i have proved that inverse is true with experimental evidence. remember if your theory, however elegant (with partial differential equations and all), does not agree with expt, it is wrong



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

you are certainly a mature person and an ardent investigator and ats is lucky to have you as a member. i am soon to perform a radiation survey on this machine and quantifying time dilation with a radioactive beta decay source. i wish you can be present to witness that. remember you are free to bring along any instrumentation under the sun to confirm whatever you need to confirm. pm me if interested.
anyways i will come back on the contents in your post a bit later.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Unfortunately I am on the opposite side of the globe.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei

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...

I have read the above first paper link and looked at your YouTube video.

Firstly, from your paper, E=Mc^2 cannot be factored out to produce a time component as you claim to have done. The 'E' for energy is a variable which has no time component. 'M' for mass is a variable with no time component. The only bit that may possibly be considered to have a time factor is the 'c' value. But it is not a variable, it is a constant, a single invariant number. As such it is invalid to extract a time variable from it.
e=mc2, should hold good in any physical system. in any equation worth its salt, dimensional units should be able to be moved around. since you are changing or dilating t on a table top it is no longer a constant and neither is c. remember now you are actually dealing with hyper dimensions, the equations belonging to our universe will not necessarily work in hyper dimensions. sure in this case with progressive time dilation, you are also generating dynamic constans or numbers, if they can be called constants at all. so none of your invariants and co variants apply to hyper dimensions.



Similarly, you say it derives to sq.rt (which is nonsense) and that mass is proportional to time (which you cannot get from either equation). Also you say that if you negate mass, it is the same as negating gravity. In a formulaic sense, however, they are actually two different things. Mass is not Gravity.
yes work it out you do get proportionalities as mentioned in the paper. yes negating mass does mean negating gravity for all practical purposes.



The decay of vegetables and the oxidation of metals can proceed at vastly different rates depending upon many variables. As such, they are very poor indicators of the flow of time, and definitely useless as experimental proof of time dilation.
these may not be perfect examples, nonetheless they do show time dilation. soon i will be quantifying ime dilation with a beta decay source.



You said that the brightness of the candle was an indicator of a change in frequency due to time dilation but a change in frequency is indicated by a change in color, not brightness (amplitude). The candle burning faster is due to vibration (the noise which can be heard in the video) which aids vaporization of the wax and therefore increase in combustion.
not necessarity change in colour. look at only the yellow ban in a spectrum and see wt is happening to the yellow colour as you go from green to orange



The change in the scale readings and the depth gauge readings were most probably due to magnetization effects on the heavy angle iron supports to which they were attached. Definitely the apparatus had some sort of magnetic-electrical motor in it as attested by the electrical supply and the high rev. motor noise it was producing.
the base of the machine rises as much as the top, so your point is moot.



To suggest that a graph with only eight data points organized in two approximate lines to "actually depict 6 Spatial and 2 Time dimensions" is nutcase logic.
well its my hypothesis for now.



The two metal micro-graphs are also of two different metals (I worked in a metallurgical laboratory for some time in the past and have done thousands of such micro-graphs myself). The first one is most probably a mild steel with carbon inclusions (cheap steel) and the second is probably zinc (galvanized metal).
no they are both of mild steel.



Time dilation, which you have said disproves Einsteinian Relativity, is fully explained by, and a function of it. It actually proves Relativity, contrary to your assertion.
pl elaborate as the paper asserts exactly the opp of gr.



Your second paper also makes the error of assuming that an increase of brightness indicates a higher frequency.
explained above.



You also mention:
1. Fireworks get brighter as they ascend into the sky.
2. Airplanes Nav Lights, Beacon and strobes get brighter as the airplane ascends into the sky.
3. Two identical lit candles placed 3 meters one above the other in still air, show that, the higher candle is brighter and burns out faster.
4. A Flashlight again when moved 3 meters up also gets brighter.

These are all highly subjective without accurate measurement of brightness. The only one that is possibly valid is the candles burn rate, but again, lower air pressure with similar oxygen abundance means that the vaporization of the hot wax happens easier causing a hotter combustion for the candle at the greater height.

In no case have you proved or disproved anything in relation to Physics, neither theoretically nor in experiment.
your assertions and conclusions are wrong



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Gravity pulls light towards it's core trying to absorb it... like the black hole that light cannot escape.

It has nothing to do with time except the delay in it's vector before being pulled off course towards the galatic center or black hole... the only reason it's curved is because it's trying to take a direct route and yet the galaxy is spinning which also contains black holes that have a similar draw towards them as well as local masses that act as a capacitance or container of trapped particles in conglomerate.

So light is like a billards ball being bounced or pulled in relation to up and down spins of masses on it's way to the strongest force of pull binding all of this together at the galactic center... even if it gets stuck or pulled into a local black hole... eventually all of this energy will be drawn out into the black hole splurged out in a large acredation then repeat...

It's like two giant space spincters in operation one at the top that eats and one that backs it out and occassionally vomits or gets constipated.

Magnetic fields operate in the same manner in the form of primer when dealing with space or plasma.

It's a torus because the nature of all of this is not only cyclic but tordial in nature... yet innumerable from atomic scale to galactic scale.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

nope. according to me light cannot escape black hole because the em wave cannot propagate due to time running incredibly fast in the black hole



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

It can't escape it's pull doesn't mean it doesn't issue out top and bottom... maybe you should put down the variable concepts and rote and have a gander at an image of one from hubble, cause no one is goose stepping to YOUR view.

All of this takes all of us right now right here all that has ever been up into this moment... and you seeking acceptance in such demands is only trying to pave your name into the future... how about setting the ego down that eggo people haven't been wanting to let go in a tug of war is well pretty nasty having changed hands so many times.

If the scientific community at large peer reviews and has several independent investigations then they'll be happy to open a new box to stuff you in with a placard for all time...



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Lol wtf are you on about mate



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei

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...

I have read the above first paper link and looked at your YouTube video.

Firstly, from your paper, E=Mc^2 cannot be factored out to produce a time component as you claim to have done. The 'E' for energy is a variable which has no time component. 'M' for mass is a variable with no time component. The only bit that may possibly be considered to have a time factor is the 'c' value. But it is not a variable, it is a constant, a single invariant number. As such it is invalid to extract a time variable from it.
e=mc2, should hold good in any physical system. in any equation worth its salt, dimensional units should be able to be moved around. since you are changing or dilating t on a table top it is no longer a constant and neither is c. remember now you are actually dealing with hyper dimensions, the equations belonging to our universe will not necessarily work in hyper dimensions. sure in this case with progressive time dilation, you are also generating dynamic constans or numbers, if they can be called constants at all. so none of your invariants and co variants apply to hyper dimensions.



Similarly, you say it derives to sq.rt (which is nonsense) and that mass is proportional to time (which you cannot get from either equation). Also you say that if you negate mass, it is the same as negating gravity. In a formulaic sense, however, they are actually two different things. Mass is not Gravity.
yes work it out you do get proportionalities as mentioned in the paper. yes negating mass does mean negating gravity for all practical purposes.



The decay of vegetables and the oxidation of metals can proceed at vastly different rates depending upon many variables. As such, they are very poor indicators of the flow of time, and definitely useless as experimental proof of time dilation.
these may not be perfect examples, nonetheless they do show time dilation. soon i will be quantifying ime dilation with a beta decay source.



You said that the brightness of the candle was an indicator of a change in frequency due to time dilation but a change in frequency is indicated by a change in color, not brightness (amplitude). The candle burning faster is due to vibration (the noise which can be heard in the video) which aids vaporization of the wax and therefore increase in combustion.
not necessarity change in colour. look at only the yellow ban in a spectrum and see wt is happening to the yellow colour as you go from green to orange



The change in the scale readings and the depth gauge readings were most probably due to magnetization effects on the heavy angle iron supports to which they were attached. Definitely the apparatus had some sort of magnetic-electrical motor in it as attested by the electrical supply and the high rev. motor noise it was producing.
the base of the machine rises as much as the top, so your point is moot.



To suggest that a graph with only eight data points organized in two approximate lines to "actually depict 6 Spatial and 2 Time dimensions" is nutcase logic.
well its my hypothesis for now.



The two metal micro-graphs are also of two different metals (I worked in a metallurgical laboratory for some time in the past and have done thousands of such micro-graphs myself). The first one is most probably a mild steel with carbon inclusions (cheap steel) and the second is probably zinc (galvanized metal).
no they are both of mild steel.



Time dilation, which you have said disproves Einsteinian Relativity, is fully explained by, and a function of it. It actually proves Relativity, contrary to your assertion.
pl elaborate as the paper asserts exactly the opp of gr.



Your second paper also makes the error of assuming that an increase of brightness indicates a higher frequency.
explained above.



You also mention:
1. Fireworks get brighter as they ascend into the sky.
2. Airplanes Nav Lights, Beacon and strobes get brighter as the airplane ascends into the sky.
3. Two identical lit candles placed 3 meters one above the other in still air, show that, the higher candle is brighter and burns out faster.
4. A Flashlight again when moved 3 meters up also gets brighter.

These are all highly subjective without accurate measurement of brightness. The only one that is possibly valid is the candles burn rate, but again, lower air pressure with similar oxygen abundance means that the vaporization of the hot wax happens easier causing a hotter combustion for the candle at the greater height.

In no case have you proved or disproved anything in relation to Physics, neither theoretically nor in experiment.
your assertions and conclusions are wrong


Why does your machine not produce an even and omni-directional field? Why does it go up? What gives it a preferential direction of action?

In E=Mc^2, it works just as simply and mathematically in hyper dimensions as in 3D. The speed of light is constant in all cases and all reference frames. The constant was deduced from the speed of light, but light speed is an outcome, a function of, the underlying constant and equations. The true propagation speed of light (e.g: as measured through Bose-Einstein Condensates and such) IS variable. The constant remains a constant.

I am unable to work out 'E=Mc^2' to get 'sq.rt' as a possible derivation at all. There are NO common factors. They are totally different.

Other than sq.rt being bad notation for 'square root', I am unable to find ANY reference to it in physics, even with Google search! As I said, it is nonsense, totally meaningless. It is like saying that 'the temperature outside today' is 'punctured yellow fluffy car-boat tyres'.

edit on 27/6/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The end result of time travel:
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei

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...

I have read the above first paper link and looked at your YouTube video.

Firstly, from your paper, E=Mc^2 cannot be factored out to produce a time component as you claim to have done. The 'E' for energy is a variable which has no time component. 'M' for mass is a variable with no time component. The only bit that may possibly be considered to have a time factor is the 'c' value. But it is not a variable, it is a constant, a single invariant number. As such it is invalid to extract a time variable from it.
e=mc2, should hold good in any physical system. in any equation worth its salt, dimensional units should be able to be moved around. since you are changing or dilating t on a table top it is no longer a constant and neither is c. remember now you are actually dealing with hyper dimensions, the equations belonging to our universe will not necessarily work in hyper dimensions. sure in this case with progressive time dilation, you are also generating dynamic constans or numbers, if they can be called constants at all. so none of your invariants and co variants apply to hyper dimensions.



Similarly, you say it derives to sq.rt (which is nonsense) and that mass is proportional to time (which you cannot get from either equation). Also you say that if you negate mass, it is the same as negating gravity. In a formulaic sense, however, they are actually two different things. Mass is not Gravity.
yes work it out you do get proportionalities as mentioned in the paper. yes negating mass does mean negating gravity for all practical purposes.



The decay of vegetables and the oxidation of metals can proceed at vastly different rates depending upon many variables. As such, they are very poor indicators of the flow of time, and definitely useless as experimental proof of time dilation.
these may not be perfect examples, nonetheless they do show time dilation. soon i will be quantifying ime dilation with a beta decay source.



You said that the brightness of the candle was an indicator of a change in frequency due to time dilation but a change in frequency is indicated by a change in color, not brightness (amplitude). The candle burning faster is due to vibration (the noise which can be heard in the video) which aids vaporization of the wax and therefore increase in combustion.
not necessarity change in colour. look at only the yellow ban in a spectrum and see wt is happening to the yellow colour as you go from green to orange



The change in the scale readings and the depth gauge readings were most probably due to magnetization effects on the heavy angle iron supports to which they were attached. Definitely the apparatus had some sort of magnetic-electrical motor in it as attested by the electrical supply and the high rev. motor noise it was producing.
the base of the machine rises as much as the top, so your point is moot.



To suggest that a graph with only eight data points organized in two approximate lines to "actually depict 6 Spatial and 2 Time dimensions" is nutcase logic.
well its my hypothesis for now.



The two metal micro-graphs are also of two different metals (I worked in a metallurgical laboratory for some time in the past and have done thousands of such micro-graphs myself). The first one is most probably a mild steel with carbon inclusions (cheap steel) and the second is probably zinc (galvanized metal).
no they are both of mild steel.



Time dilation, which you have said disproves Einsteinian Relativity, is fully explained by, and a function of it. It actually proves Relativity, contrary to your assertion.
pl elaborate as the paper asserts exactly the opp of gr.



Your second paper also makes the error of assuming that an increase of brightness indicates a higher frequency.
explained above.



You also mention:
1. Fireworks get brighter as they ascend into the sky.
2. Airplanes Nav Lights, Beacon and strobes get brighter as the airplane ascends into the sky.
3. Two identical lit candles placed 3 meters one above the other in still air, show that, the higher candle is brighter and burns out faster.
4. A Flashlight again when moved 3 meters up also gets brighter.

These are all highly subjective without accurate measurement of brightness. The only one that is possibly valid is the candles burn rate, but again, lower air pressure with similar oxygen abundance means that the vaporization of the hot wax happens easier causing a hotter combustion for the candle at the greater height.

In no case have you proved or disproved anything in relation to Physics, neither theoretically nor in experiment.
your assertions and conclusions are wrong


Candle flames already burn predominantly in the yellow spectrum (carbon emission) where our eyes are particularly sensitive. An increase in frequency pushes towards the blue end of the spectrum, where our eyes are not as sensitive. An increase in frequency, therefore, would result in a perceptually dimmer candle flame, not a brighter one. What you are seeing and interpreting as "time dilation" is not consistent with the effects of time dilation or optical Doppler shift.

I would be interested if beta decay rates show anything. Ensure that you eliminate external beta sources, like people walking around (including yourself), and calibrate your equipment with known reference tools both before and after the experiment. Include the calibration steps and readings in the video. You also may need to physically isolate sensitive equipment to prevent vibration damage.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cynic
The end result of time travel:
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.


I predict you have been going to have said that!



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

That constant relies on the viewer in relativity... otherwise there is nothing to witness it. When we witness it, it becomes relative just like the double slit experiment... some times a wave and sometimes a particle... the vector variations for "bulls eyes" are a satistical probablity used as a constant to remove the observer as a statistical probability for it taking place in such a manner in nature whether we observe it occuring or not.
edit on 27-6-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp.



posted on Jun, 27 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Im simply saying if one is singing the me me me tune... then theres a probability statistically speaking that reaching has constantly taken place, in such a variable of one string plucking it's own tune... others have to verify its note as being in harmony with the entire view.

So youve felt youve undone GR, how does it fit into the whole entire picture or frame work? Does it all start falling apart... or does it fit seamlessly into the existing picture...

You know that puzzle piece that sometimes fit even though it's not the correct one? Hey sometimes it happens but best to check the existing image... as not all the ones already lay down that it fit into are incorrect in the picture.

Thats like a bubble or vacuuming under the couch and seeing a puzzle peice then yelling hey found that peice in grid sector 4679, 48503... people look and go um been covered. So looking and saying hey heres something GR is based of off, did you take that into account? No refutation just still reaching... so then I suggested what to do if you persist to reach and what to expect if you try to hold it up running going found the piece found the piece while the torch has burned out to light your eternal flame.

Just trying to save you some embarassment, if ego cannot stop reaching and take the known steps for verification as I pointed to? Your career may never recover... so hey take entropy into acount when trying to plot against GR, and mind the bigger picture and what falls apart of you replace it, and bear in mind this is exactly what the scientific review that is unbiased will do too... if it does not fit that criterion or the parts that fall apart arent also replaced to make it all fit together and work? Youll simply be a laughing stock...

So thats what Im on about they say pride comes before a fall and that self assuredness will not go unchecked when reaching so far out trying to become an island unto oneself... when so much else is dependent on such pronouncments and proclimations.

Of course your passion and dedication and love for such is an admirable thing and Im glad it's your passion... so please bare in mind what I am pointing out is what is going to be demanded of you.
edit on 27-6-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei

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...

I have read the above first paper link and looked at your YouTube video.

Firstly, from your paper, E=Mc^2 cannot be factored out to produce a time component as you claim to have done. The 'E' for energy is a variable which has no time component. 'M' for mass is a variable with no time component. The only bit that may possibly be considered to have a time factor is the 'c' value. But it is not a variable, it is a constant, a single invariant number. As such it is invalid to extract a time variable from it.
e=mc2, should hold good in any physical system. in any equation worth its salt, dimensional units should be able to be moved around. since you are changing or dilating t on a table top it is no longer a constant and neither is c. remember now you are actually dealing with hyper dimensions, the equations belonging to our universe will not necessarily work in hyper dimensions. sure in this case with progressive time dilation, you are also generating dynamic constans or numbers, if they can be called constants at all. so none of your invariants and co variants apply to hyper dimensions.



Similarly, you say it derives to sq.rt (which is nonsense) and that mass is proportional to time (which you cannot get from either equation). Also you say that if you negate mass, it is the same as negating gravity. In a formulaic sense, however, they are actually two different things. Mass is not Gravity.
yes work it out you do get proportionalities as mentioned in the paper. yes negating mass does mean negating gravity for all practical purposes.



The decay of vegetables and the oxidation of metals can proceed at vastly different rates depending upon many variables. As such, they are very poor indicators of the flow of time, and definitely useless as experimental proof of time dilation.
these may not be perfect examples, nonetheless they do show time dilation. soon i will be quantifying ime dilation with a beta decay source.



You said that the brightness of the candle was an indicator of a change in frequency due to time dilation but a change in frequency is indicated by a change in color, not brightness (amplitude). The candle burning faster is due to vibration (the noise which can be heard in the video) which aids vaporization of the wax and therefore increase in combustion.
not necessarity change in colour. look at only the yellow ban in a spectrum and see wt is happening to the yellow colour as you go from green to orange



The change in the scale readings and the depth gauge readings were most probably due to magnetization effects on the heavy angle iron supports to which they were attached. Definitely the apparatus had some sort of magnetic-electrical motor in it as attested by the electrical supply and the high rev. motor noise it was producing.
the base of the machine rises as much as the top, so your point is moot.



To suggest that a graph with only eight data points organized in two approximate lines to "actually depict 6 Spatial and 2 Time dimensions" is nutcase logic.
well its my hypothesis for now.



The two metal micro-graphs are also of two different metals (I worked in a metallurgical laboratory for some time in the past and have done thousands of such micro-graphs myself). The first one is most probably a mild steel with carbon inclusions (cheap steel) and the second is probably zinc (galvanized metal).
no they are both of mild steel.



Time dilation, which you have said disproves Einsteinian Relativity, is fully explained by, and a function of it. It actually proves Relativity, contrary to your assertion.
pl elaborate as the paper asserts exactly the opp of gr.



Your second paper also makes the error of assuming that an increase of brightness indicates a higher frequency.
explained above.



You also mention:
1. Fireworks get brighter as they ascend into the sky.
2. Airplanes Nav Lights, Beacon and strobes get brighter as the airplane ascends into the sky.
3. Two identical lit candles placed 3 meters one above the other in still air, show that, the higher candle is brighter and burns out faster.
4. A Flashlight again when moved 3 meters up also gets brighter.

These are all highly subjective without accurate measurement of brightness. The only one that is possibly valid is the candles burn rate, but again, lower air pressure with similar oxygen abundance means that the vaporization of the hot wax happens easier causing a hotter combustion for the candle at the greater height.

In no case have you proved or disproved anything in relation to Physics, neither theoretically nor in experiment.
your assertions and conclusions are wrong


Why does your machine not produce an even and omni-directional field? Why does it go up? What gives it a preferential direction of action?
as mentioned in the video- polarisation



In E=Mc^2, it works just as simply and mathematically in hyper dimensions as in 3D. The speed of light is constant in all cases and all reference frames. The constant was deduced from the speed of light, but light speed is an outcome, a function of, the underlying constant and equations. The true propagation speed of light (e.g: as measured through Bose-Einstein Condensates and such) IS variable. The constant remains a constant.

I am unable to work out 'E=Mc^2' to get 'sq.rt' as a possible derivation at all. There are NO common factors. They are totally different.

Other than sq.rt being bad notation for 'square root', I am unable to find ANY reference to it in physics, even with Google search! As I said, it is nonsense, totally meaningless. It is like saying that 'the temperature outside today' is 'punctured yellow fluffy car-boat tyres'.
hyperdimensional physics is an uncharted territory and no man knows how our equations will work in other universes. all constants in our universe may not be constant in other ones. that something is nonsense since you cant deduce it is only your opinion, but i have made a note of it. sq.rt, or square root, wtf is the difference. fluffy tyres, lol nice one



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

mate im posting wt i am absolutely certain about . pride is not a part of that equation at all



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Well jamming it at others with such violence is square peg in round hole... so hey if you saw the sides off and sand out the roughness... you might be able to slide such into concideration. Kicking in the door then wacking people with that little pastic hammer doesn't do much other than irritate people. So as far as such reception is going to go is to swat you off like a fly on a horses ass... in flinching and without any thought or consideration to what you're even trying to present.

So OP my appologies for the derailment... that myself and other poster(s) have given if I were a mod I could take this thread back in time but, hey that also pisses a lot of people off if anyone didnt know... there's a community against any kind of information alter or deletion from the web... as they see it as public domain and censorship of it is very very rude cause it's like follow follow follow the yellow hey whered that road go? I wanna know what was said %&&()__+&*^&%!

So anyway where ever this thread finds you in dimensional space at that point and time... here it is and there it was in multidimensional realities at incalculable times unknown.

Even time doesn't exist on my wrist unless I look at it going round at some arbitrary point... and the one on my wall needs a new battery, and a couple needing repair are frozen in time... ah timelessness is a moment as it's occuring aware or unaware unless telling it, then it says hey! Dont tell me what I am! or hey thanks for taking the time... depends on if Chronos is your friend... I'd say the synchronicity people have him as a buddy.




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
hyperdimensional physics is an uncharted territory and no man knows how our equations will work in other universes. all constants in our universe may not be constant in other ones. that something is nonsense since you cant deduce it is only your opinion, but i have made a note of it. sq.rt, or square root, wtf is the difference. fluffy tyres, lol nice one

Hyperdimesnions and other universes (many worlds) are two very different things.

Hyperdimensions exist in THIS universe but for reasons not yet grasped, we cannot see all of them. As such, there is no reason to assume that the equations covering the visible part of this universe don't work exactly as they do in the invisible parts. Although we cannot be sure that all equations and constants are consistent in all areas of this universe, it is likely based, upon what we have observed.

With alternate universes (the many worlds hypothesis) we suspect that everything that can happen, does, and this gives us some assurance that there must be differences from the physics of this universe. The thing is, we cannot get there and they cannot get here. Once a proto-universe bubble 'calves' off from ours, it is gone, disconnected forever. The only way to hold on to an alternate universe is to prevent the 'neck' from closing with enormous amounts of 'negative energy' (something that we have never actually seen, and may not exist, anyway).

edit on 28/6/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join