Let's Discuss Time Travel

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

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.

only in the yellow spectrum you will see as you go from greem to orange, the yellow gets dimmer and vice versa

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.

ok thanks noted.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
(when I asked about why there was a directional action of his anti-gravity machine)
...
as mentioned in the video- polarisation

Polarization is a loaded word in Physics and meaningless as an explanation unless you describe the particular type of polarization.

For instance, is it:

- EM Wave Polarization.

- Dielectric polarization (which itself has many types: Volume Dielectric Polarization, Dipolar polarization, Ionic polarization, Maxwell-Wagner-Sillars polarization).

- Electrochemical Polarization.

- Spin polarization.

- Photon polarization.

- Vacuum polarization.

Or, do you mean mathematical types of polarization, like:

- Polarization of an Abelian variety, in the mathematics of complex manifolds.

- Polarization of an algebraic form, a technique for expressing a homogeneous polynomial in a simpler fashion by adjoining more variables.

- Polarization identity expresses an inner product in terms of its associated norm.

Polarization can also be mapped using many different topologies like Circular, Torroidal and Linear.

Awaiting your response.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

you are not derailing anything. your comments are welcome, but rest assured no one's gonna swat my like a fly. i know wt i am talking about.
If gr falls eventually(and for me its already fallen), i know ms will be turned upside down and people who try to cling to gr because it keeps them in their jobs, will be sadly disappointed

a reply to: chr0naut

you are a loyal terrier of einstein and you are welcome to it.
wt i was talking about is when you start dilating time on a tabletop you are already opening up an alternative universe

a reply to: chr0naut

Lol the video already mentions polarisation of the unified field.
Breakdown of various polarisations inside the machine cannot be revealed as yet.

originally posted by: Nochzwei

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

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.

only in the yellow spectrum you will see as you go from greem to orange, the yellow gets dimmer and vice versa

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.

ok thanks noted.

Green is at a higher frequency than Yellow and Orange. A good mnemonic is the colors of the rainbow (ROY G. BIV) which start at the lowest frequency (infra-red) and go - Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet. Immediately above that is Ultra Violet.

So you can see that raising the frequency from Yellow does not transit through Orange but goes towards Blue, through Green. The apparent brightness reduces with increasing frequency above Yellow, where our eyes are most sensitive.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

you are a loyal terrier of einstein and you are welcome to it.
wt i was talking about is when you start dilating time on a tabletop you are already opening up an alternative universe

You should build a castle there and rule as king.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol the video already mentions polarisation of the unified field.
Breakdown of various polarisations inside the machine cannot be revealed as yet.

Which Unified Field are you talking about? Is it Haramein-Rauscher Metric or some other?

As you still haven't told me what type of polarization causes the directionality, Im no better informed.

"Polarization" is a very exciting sciency sounding word, though, just like "Unified Field". Why don't you use "quantum" or "fluxes", too. "Fluxes" is good because it sounds nearly rude.

Did you know, I once found in an electrical components catalogue, an item called a "Flux Sucking Shunt". What a name. eh?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei

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

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.

only in the yellow spectrum you will see as you go from greem to orange, the yellow gets dimmer and vice versa

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.

ok thanks noted.

Green is at a higher frequency than Yellow and Orange. A good mnemonic is the colors of the rainbow (ROY G. BIV) which start at the lowest frequency (infra-red) and go - Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet. Immediately above that is Ultra Violet.

So you can see that raising the frequency from Yellow does not transit through Orange but goes towards Blue, through Green. The apparent brightness reduces with increasing frequency above Yellow, where our eyes are most sensitive.

Look at only the yellow band, brightness increases as you move from orange boundary to the green boundary.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol the video already mentions polarisation of the unified field.
Breakdown of various polarisations inside the machine cannot be revealed as yet.

Which Unified Field are you talking about? Is it Haramein-Rauscher Metric or some other?

As you still haven't told me what type of polarization causes the directionality, Im no better informed.

"Polarization" is a very exciting sciency sounding word, though, just like "Unified Field". Why don't you use "quantum" or "fluxes", too. "Fluxes" is good because it sounds nearly rude.

Did you know, I once found in an electrical components catalogue, an item called a "Flux Sucking Shunt". What a name. eh?

Lol haramein the abominable. It is my own metric and vertically up polarization is already mentioned in the video. why it is so cannot be revealed. Lol you can use any words when you construct your own project instead of being an armchair pseudo expert.

originally posted by: 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 I don't think time travel exists or ever will.

Hey that's exactly what was said to have happened during the Philadelphia experiment.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: 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 I don't think time travel exists or ever will.

Hey that's exactly what was said to have happened during the Philadelphia experiment.

yes there are many unknown dangers when you mess with time

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

you are a loyal terrier of einstein and you are welcome to it.
wt i was talking about is when you start dilating time on a tabletop you are already opening up an alternative universe

You should build a castle there and rule as king.

but flesh and blood lifeforms cannot survive there

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: 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 I don't think time travel exists or ever will.

Hey that's exactly what was said to have happened during the Philadelphia experiment.

yes there are many unknown dangers when you mess with time

Yes, a colleague of mine attempted a 90 degree turn 11th dimension. He ended up totally inside out. What a mess to clean up!

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: chr0naut

you are a loyal terrier of einstein and you are welcome to it.
wt i was talking about is when you start dilating time on a tabletop you are already opening up an alternative universe

You should build a castle there and rule as king.

but flesh and blood lifeforms cannot survive there

Oh well, another castle in the air sinks, once again, into the swamp.

a reply to: chr0naut

They are simply bubbles of thought forms and no more real than a dream a phantasm... there is only one true base reality once all of those pop... yet these concepts mirror and grow off of eachother as if they have a life of their own.

When one pops it does not cease to reflect another... quantum foam