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.

 

A dissertation on Space and Time

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
The following posts are a brief overview of something that I have been considering for quite some time. I am posting them here, now, for many reasons. ATS would seem to me, at this point in time, to be the proper place to put them, again, for many reasons which I will not go into in depth here.

Please remember while reading that this is not everything I have on this subject; most of the mathematics have been removed for clarity and readability.There are many qualified individuals here on ATS who will be more than capable of comprehending the mathematical implications contained herein, but there are many more who would be unable to do so and would no doubt find such difficult to comprehend.

One may notice a similarity of application to the works by Dr. Stephen Hawking, as well as contradictions to other scientific principles that have been advanced in recent years. This is not presented as a rebuttal to these principles which may be inconsistent with it, but as an alternative model.

This is being published here under the Creative Commons License v3.0. I thereby retain all copyright, save a non-exclusive perpetual license hereby granted to ATS.

I look forward to insight by the members here.

TheRedneck


[edit on 11/4/2009 by TheRedneck]




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
A dissertation on time and space

Albert Einstein was perhaps one of the greatest scientific minds that ever lived. He gave us the Theory of Relativity that has allowed us to understand many of the mysteries surrounding time and space. He had a unique way of thinking about science, utilizing something he deemed the 'thought experiment'.

In a thought experiment, one imagines a situation and examines it in detail. The advantage is that a thought experiment is cheap to produce and can override physical limitations. Arguably the most famous of these concerns the nature of gravity and inertia. In it, Einstein envisioned a box sitting in empty space, devoid of any gravitational effects of nearby object. The box is enclosed completely; an observer inside the box cannot see out. Obviously, the observer is weightless inside the box.

Now Einstein considers what would happen if the box were to be pulled 'upward' (as related to the observer's point of reference). If this movement were steady, there would be no observable change in the observer's surroundings. He would be moving at the same speed as the box enclosing him, and thus would observe no motion relative to the box. However, if the movement should not be steady, an interesting thing would happen to our observer.

Just as when an elevator car accelerates one feels a slight momentary pull downward due to inertia, so the observer in the box would feel a similar tug downward. If the acceleration were steady, that is, the rate of change of speed were constant as opposed to the speed itself being constant, the observer would continue to feel this downward pull. Einstein concluded that this downward pull would affect everything the observer could observe; if he threw a ball, it would experience a downward vector component in its trajectory. If he released an object, it would move toward the floor of the box as though it were being pulled by an invisible force. Even his own body would feel pulled to the floor. In other words, there was no experiment an observer could make that would not give the identical results as what would be observed in a gravitational field; hence, Einstein concluded, gravity and inertia must be one and the same.

Let us now expand on this thought experiment. If we accept that gravity and inertia are the same, then gravity on the earth must also be due to inertia. In other words, every gravitational experience we encounter on earth may be considered as though the surface of the earth was expanding outward toward us, with a constant acceleration which is equal to the gravitational constant of the planet. This, however is not a feasible explanation. If this were happening, then the earth would be increasing in size at an exponential rate which we know is not happening. It would also mean that all matter would be doing the same, since we also know that any matter has a gravitational pull of its own, not just planets.

So is this a flaw in Einstein's logic? No, rather it is a clue. Remember that movement is relative. There is no difference that can be drawn between two object moving relative to each other about which one is actually moving. Movement is only applicable in the sense that it is relative to an observer.

Instead of considering the earth to be growing in size, along with all other matter in the Universe, we can consider that the Universe is accelerating into matter. If we consider the Universe to be not truly 'empty', but comprised of something that is inexplicably tied to all matter, then that something can be seen as accelerating into all matter. Since it is tied to all matter, that would yield the same result as though all matter were growing in physical size at an accelerating rate.

To demonstrate this, hold a strip of rubber between your hands, with each end in each hand. Now pull on the rubber. You will feel the rubber trying to pull your hands back together. This is the same thing we feel when we experience gravity, except the rubber is invisible to us.

Of course, the rubber in the preceding experiment is one-dimensional. Space is three dimensional (in our experience). This brings us to another observation: since physical space is three dimensional, the area of the space surrounding an object increases rapidly as the distance increases. That means that as the distance form an object decreases, the amount of space decreases as well. Should matter be pulling on this invisible 'continuum' (as I tend to refer to it) at a constant rate, the physical characteristics of three dimensions would cause an acceleration in movement of the continuum as it grows closer to the object exerting the pull. In simpler terms, as the continuum gets closer to the pull, there is less room for the continuum to exist in and it must move faster, accelerating.

Another bit of evidence that fits this theory is the fact that objects appear to fall at the same rate, regardless of mass. Since both objects are in the continuum around a massive gravity-producing body such as a planet, both will move within the continuum. The speed of the continuum is constant from one point to another, based only on the distance form the planet, and therefore anything in that continuum at a certain height will fall at equal speeds.

(Actually, since all matter exerts its own pull on the continuum as well, there may actually be a slight differential in speed between objects of sufficient mass differential; however since the gravitational effects of a small object pale so much in comparison the gravitational fiel of a planet, this possible difference would be so small as to be practically undetectable.)

Now that we have established the probable existence of something that occupies what we know as 'empty' space, we must determine what that something is. It certainly cannot be matter, as we have already established that matter exerts a pull on the continuum due to its inherent mass. The only other component we know of in the Universe is energy.

Now, energy in its broadest sense can be used to describe anything that can affect matter, be it kinetic (motion) energy, potential (based on ability to produce motion) energy, heat (molecular motion) energy, or electromagnetic energy (which encompasses electrostatic attraction/repulsion, light, radio waves, cosmic rays, etc.). 'Energy', in the sense that is used here, is mainly focused on the latter, electromagnetic energy.

Of course, the first question that comes to mind is that of "Why haven't we detected this energy?" The most obvious answer is that it isn't there, and that is closer to the truth than one might think. For energy to be detected, it too must be measured relative to some established zero point reference. For example, the voltage in high-power electrical transmission lines is definitely lethal. Yet, how many have not seen a bird sitting happily on a transmission line, unharmed by this lethal surge of power directly under its feet? I believe all of us have seen that. The bird is not harmed by the high voltage because the bird does not experience a difference in voltage; when it is sitting on that power line, it is at the same electrical potential as the line itself. No current will flow under that condition. Should the bird touch two lines of different voltage at the same time, however, the result will be fried bird.

Regardless of the 'value' of the energy contained in this continuum, as long as the energy level does not vary from one location to the next, there will be no way to measure and thus no way to observe the inherent energy contained within it. An apt analogy is that of the surface of a body of water; if the water is perfectly calm, there is no way to retrieve energy from it, since there is no movement. Water is there, yes, but there is no differential of water to produce a detectable flow.

Like the surface of a body of water, however, it is indeed possible to detect waves. A water wave is simply a motion that alters the surface of the water in a pattern, transporting energy form one position to another. A water wave does not alter the overall surface of the water it is in; any rise in water level at one point is offset by a fall in the water level at another point. Overall there is no difference in the water level, yet there is energy flowing thorough the water. The continuum is similar in this respect to a body of water. While speaking of the average energy level is as moot as comparing the altitude of the ocean to sea level, we can see the waves of energy as they flow through it. I use the terminology 'see the waves' here in not only a figurative way; the light we actually see with our eyes is akin to waves in the water.

This brings us to another question: what is matter? Science defines matter in a circular method. Matter is anything that has mass; mass is an inherent property of matter. In other words, we know what matter does, how it behaves under known conditions, but we do not know what matter actually is. We can, however, increase that definition of matter/mass: Mass is the tendency for matter to 'suck in' the continuum around it, producing the effect we know as gravity.

If matter is producing a pull on the continuum, it follows that matter would not be a separate entity form the continuum, but rather a part of the continuum itself. Experiments have produced rough estimates of the physical size of protons and neutrons, which make up the bulk of matter as we know it. The measurements are far from precise due to the obvious problems when dealing with something as small as a subatomic particle. Yet, should one calculate the energy that would be inherent in a waveform of the same wavelength as the measures size of a proton/neutron, with the amplitude to make the waveform fit inside a circular area, one determines that the energy inherent in such an electromagnetic wave is consistent with the mass of a proton/neutron according to the equation E=mc².

That indicates that it is entirely plausible that matter is a trapped wave of electromagnetic energy, trapped by some harmonic resonance inherent in the continuum.

If there is one such harmonic, it stands to reason there would be others, and this would account for the existence of other particles: quarks, muons, neutrinos, electrons, etc. However, some of these harmonic frequencies would be less stable than others, and so we also have an accounting of why certain particles decay more rapidly than others. The main harmonic of the Universe would seem to be the proton/neutron wavelength, with other particles existing sporatically at other harmonics. It also explains the quantum nature of matter, since particles could only exist at these harmonic frequencies.

One aspect of this theory is intriguing, however, and does not align with traditional thought. If matter is a standing wave function of energy in the continuum, then the amount of mass is not proportional to the physical size of the particles produced by this function. That is a fancy way of saying that the larger an particle is, the less mass it contains and vice versa.

In everyday life, it is simple judgment that the bigger someting is, the more mass it has. A small rock typically weighs more than a large rock. A small sliver of steel is lighter than a large block of steel. But the reason for this observation is that the small sliver of steel contains many fewer particles of matter than the large block of steel does. It is the quantum effect of particles of identical size and mass comprising the steel. When one enters the subatomic realm, however, this relationship is reversed. We are no longer dealing with quantity of particles, but rather with individual particles themselves. In this world, larger is smaller.

Of course, we were all taught in science class that electrons, which are much lighter than protons/neutrons, are also much smaller. But science has yet to be able to effectively measure the physical size of an electron; the sizes accepted are based on the mass as opposed to the mass of a proton/neutron; therefore they are an estimation rather than an observation. In actuality, an atom is a tiny group of small particles in the center, surrounded by huge (but light) electrons that are so light they tend to act in many cases like energy rather than like mass.

The heaviest things in the Universe are black holes. A black hole is an area where gravity has become so strong that not even light can escape it. This is logical only when combined with this continuum theory. According to Einstein's equations, any mass moving at the speed of light relative to an observer will have infinite mass relative to that observer. This is why the speed of light is considered to be an unbreakable barrier; infinite mass means infinite energy would be required to accelerate (or decelerate) the mass in question. Light cannot, then, have rest mass, since it would then have infinite mass relative to any observer of it. One 'photon', if it contained any rest mass at all, would blow right through our eyeballs and out the back of our heads with no decrease in speed, since it would become infinitely massive to us.

Instead, light has energy, as explained earlier. Yet, this energy is contained within the continuum, since light is only a wave in that continuum. Therefore, it will have gravitational effects as the continuum it is in moves physically in a gravitational field. In order for a black hole to capture light, there must be some point at which the continuum is moving faster than the speed of light. Light attempting to escape would be akin to paddling a canoe against a current; if the current is moving faster than one can paddle, one will actually move backwards.

This point where the continuum is moving at the speed of light is the Schwarzschild Radius, commonly referred to as the 'Event Horizon'. Beyond this point, the continuum is moving faster than the speed of light. Strangely enough, all matter has a Schwarzschild Radius, even the humble proton. The difference between a 'normal' particle such as a proton and a black hole is that the Schwarzschild Radius of a black hole is outside the physical size of the black hole, while the Schwarzschild Radius of a proton is buried deep within its physical size. This is plainly obvious from a quick examination of the characteristics of a sphere; at some point, the area of a sphere will be small enough so as to cause the speed of the continuum through that sphere to reach the speed of light.

Remember from our earlier examination into the characteristics of matter particles that the more mass a particle has, the smaller it will be physically. This is the mechanism behind black holes. The singularity at the center of a black hole is actually a particle, of such intense mass that it no longer needs a standing waveform harmonic to maintain itself; the sheer gravity of the black hole will allow it to exist. This also means that since black holes are a function of the sheer mass of a particle (singularity), the concept of 'mini black holes' is a misnomer. A particle cannot be massive and still be light. There are, however, different situations that could mimic the effects of a black hole; these will be explained later.

The very fact that the continuum can move faster than the speed of light, apparent when one considers the black hole, brings up another question: how is this possible? According to Einstein's equations, the speed, mass, and length of any object changes with velocity, approaching limits of infinity and zero at the speed of light. Beyond this speed, a mathematical riddle appears: i.

Mathematically, i is the square root of negative one. It is a number that cannot exist. No number when multiplied by itself can produce a negative number. If the original number is positive, then its square is positive. If the original number is negative, its square is still positive. So what does i, the square root of negative one, mean?

Let us diverge for a moment to examine this impossibility. Since i is, by definition, the square of negative one, then what would i² be? By definition, the square root of a square is itself. Therefore, i² = i. Now, what is i³? Well, since i³ = i² · i, it follows that i³ = -i. Raising i to the fourth power is the same as (i²)², which would be -1² or 1. Now, look at the pattern we have. If we envision a graph, with the 'x' axis being real numbers (-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3) and the 'y' axis being imaginary numbers (-3i, -2i, -i, 0, i, 2i, 3i), we see that the powers of i indicate the four extents of a circle. In other words, each power of i indicates a 90° shift around the origin (0, 0).

Einstein's equations accomplish the feat of invoking i by using the expression √(c² - v²), where c is the speed of light and v is the observed relative velocity. At the point where v = c (velocity equals the speed of light), this reduces to the square root of zero, or simply zero. Observed time approaches zero, since rest time is divided by the foregoing expression; observed distance (in the direction of motion) approaches zero for the same reason; observed mass approaches infinity since rest mass is divided by this expression. The expression itself is interesting because it is an exact analogy to the Pythagorean Theorem which equates sides of a right triangle.

The Pythagorean Theorem can be visualized via a circle around the origin of a graph, with both the 'x' axis and the 'y' axis representing real numbers. As a finite line is rotated around the origin, the 'x' component and the 'y' component at the end of the line segment conform to the Pythagorean Theorem d² = x² + y², with d being the length of the line segment. Therefore, to calculate the y coordinate at a particular 'x' coordinate, one algebraically arranges the Pythagorean Theorem into y² = d² - x², or y = √(d² - x²). This is exactly the same as Einstein's equations, with d representing c and x representing v. In other words, every object is moving at the same total speed at all times, with that total speed being the speed of light. Any physical movement reduces the movement through time, resulting in a slowing of time.

Of course, in everyday life, our motion is so slow compared to the speed of light that this effect is undetectable. Yet, astronomical research has shown time and time again that Einstein's calculations are accurate.

If we mentally rotate the line segment around the origin of our graph, remembering that the length of the line segment is d, our physical speed is y, and our speed through time is x, we reach a strange occurrence when we reach 90° (physical speed is the same as the speed of light). Passing this point means our physical speed decreases! In other words, any attempt to go faster would result in going slower, and time would begin to move backward! Obviously an increase in speed would not result in a slower speed, so something must be wrong... and it is.

Continued---

[edit on 11/4/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
---continued:

Remember from our previous discussion of i, invoking i results in a 90° phase shift for each power of i invoked. Taking our graph, that would indicate that instead of continuing around to the left, moving the line segment beyond 90° would cause the line segment to move away from our planar graph, at another 90° angle (a 'z' coordinate). What this would mean concerning our speed is up for discussion, but our speed in time, represented by 'x', would not change in the major plane of the graph. Instead, we would experience time in a new dimension, that would work opposite to that which we understand in this dimension. The faster we tried to travel physically, the slower we would move (decreasing 'y') and the faster time would move around us (increasing 'z'), until we again reached a point where velocity would be zero and time in this new 'z' dimension would run at the speed of light.

Here we have 4 new dimensions, the 5th, the 6th, and the 7th dimensions, analogous to the three physical dimensions we are familiar with, and time as the 8th dimension in this plane. but regardless of our movement through either physical dimensions or time in this plane, our time in the first plane would remain stopped. Any object entering this new plane would cease to exist in this plane, beyond the point where it changed planes. Now relate this to a particle of mass that enters the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole. As it approaches the speed of light, its apparent time to an observer in this plane would approach zero. At the speed of light it would stop all movement through our time. After that point it would cease to exist in our observation. But in the other plane, it would appear and increase its speed through time until it was again moving at the speed of light through time in this new plane.

That means that any matter falling into a black hole, once the Schwarzschild Radius has appeared, will cease to exist in our experience. But what about the continuum itself? Does it cease to exist in our time?

Perhaps, but there is one more question to be resolved: if all matter is continually pulling on this continuum, where is the continuum coming from? One cannot use a resource without lessening that resource, unless the resource in question is being replenished somehow.

Scientists have successfully created antimatter particles. Anti-protons, anti-neutrons, and positrons (anti-electrons) are known to be physically possible. Yet, they do not seem to exist in abundance in our Universe. While little is known about anti-matter, what is known is that a particle of anti-matter will, when it comes into contact with its counterpart particle of matter, annihilate both itself and its counterpart in a burst of energy egual to the masses of both particles. It is also known that energy equal to the mass equivalent of both particles can produce a particle and its anti-particle. This is an interesting observation when considered with the aspect of time. Physics tells that any action produces an equal and opposite reaction. If one considers the timeline of the creation and destruction of, say, an anti-proton, it goes like this:

A burst of energy equal to the mass equivalent of two protons is used to create both a proton and an anti-proton. The proton continues to exist, while the anti-proton quickly intercepts another proton. Both the anti-proton and the newly-encountered proton then vanish, releasing the same amount of energy that was used to create them.

But this can be seen another way:

A proton moves through time in a positive direction. It releases a burst of energy equal to twice its mass, effectively reversing its direction through time. That proton, now observed in reverse as an anti-proton, then encounters an amount of energy equal to twice its mass and again reverses its direction in time. It is now observed as a proton, the same proton we originally stated was 'created' along with the anti-proton. Since we the observers are viewing things happening in a forward motion through time, we observe this 'anti-proton; moving backward until it again reverses direction and we observe it disappearing as it ceases to exist in our time. Al three particles are actually the same particle, moving back and forth through time.

In other words, anti-matter can be envisioned as matter moving backwards through time. Now, if matter moving forward in time exhibits a destructive pull on the continuum, it follows that matter moving backward through time would be observed to be creating the same continuum. In other words, gravity would not work like electricity or magnetism. Instead of like charges repeling each other and unlike charges attracting each other, matter would attract matter, anti-matter would repel anti-matter, and matter and anti-matter would exhibit no observed gravitational action toward each other.

Any group of repelling particles will naturally migrate toward the outer edges of whatever contains them, just as the electrical charges on a charged metal sphere will migrate toward the outer surface of the sphere. That means that any anti-matter that exists in the Universe would naturally locate itself along the edge of the available area (the Universe), in an attempt to expand away from each other. Matter, on the other hand, would tend to attract other matter and remain generally in the center of the available area (the Universe). Anti-matter would also be expelling continuum rather than consuming it, meaning there would be a continual motion of continuum from the outer edges of the Universe toward the central congestion of matter. This would create a 'gravitational current' inward from the rim of the Universe, which would make Universal expansion (as observed in matter) seem slower than it would should there not be this gravitational current.

Thus, the concept of 'dark matter' is nothing more than an attempt to explain this gravitational current in terms of a Universe devoid of anti-matter.

We know from earlier in this presentation that as matter consumes the continuum, that continuum exists in another set of dimensions. Thus, it is only reasonable to presume that anti-matter is producing continuum from the same source. Thus, this alternate reality is an inverse of this one, a conduit if you will, to channel continuum from matter to anti-matter. Inversely, our reality exists to channel continuum from anti-matter to matter. What is matter here is anti-matter there, and vice-versa. Thus, time itself would operate in reverse.

Now, what would happen if this continuum did not exist? Certainly, science fiction is fascinated by the idea of a 'rip in space-time', judging from the many different scenarios surrounding such a concept. Is such a tear, such an area devoid of continuum even possible? Yes it is, and it exists within the Schwarzschild Radius of every particle of matter existing. Since continuum passing the speed of light at the Schwarzschild Radius disappears into the other plane, it ceases to exist here; thus the area is devoid of any continuum. This is the explanation of the so-called 'mini black holes'. Any area devoid of continuum will absorb continuum, whether that absoption is temporary unti the rip is restored or a permanent rip that mimics matter. Such an area, if it could be created, would have the same effects of a black hole without the corresponding matter needed to create it naturally, meaning it could exist at any size. There is cause to believe that such a rip could actually form a conduit of continuum to the other plane, and that cause lies within the consideration of the formation of a black hole.

In the case of black holes, this rip that exists beyond the Schwarzschild Radius means that the original matter that made up the black hole, as well as any continuum in the area, would be pressed into the other plane of existence as the Schwarzschild Radius expanded. Bear in mind the process of black hole formation: as a star collapses under its own weight, particles are forced together under the pull of gravity. So many particles are pulling on such a small area of continuum that the particles actually merge, not into plasma, but into a single particle with all the mass of the original matter that created it, yet so small from all this mass that the Schwarzschild Radius expands beyond its physical size. Once this Schwarzschild Radius reaches the physical size of the particle forming it, the particle itself would be in an area where there was no continuum, and would cease to exist as a particle. It would revert to continuum energy and thus be swept to the other plane along with the continuum being drawn into it.

So a black hole could be seen as a massless conduit between planes, set into motion by the action of matter in a collapse so sudden that the matter that created it is itself consumed by the black hole, leaving only the appearance of matter in our existence. It has been hypothesized by Dr. Stephen Hawking that black holes dissipate over time; if this is so (and it does appear to be), could it be explained by a slow collapse of this massless conduit? If this is the case, then mini black holes would also dissipate, and would do so sooner than a natural black hole since there is less of a rip to begin with.

To recap the information presented herein, the Universe is connected via matter and continuum rips (black holes) to an inverse reality. Matter and black holes exist as conduits for the continuum to be recycled between these two planes. The inverse reality operates in reverse to this one, as though it were moving backwards in time, and exists at right angles to our reality. We are moving forward in time-space at a predetermined rate, and that predetermined rate of motion through space-time means that as we increase our observed velocity through space, we decrease our observed velocity through time by a related amount, as ordained by Einstein's equations. Anti-matter exists along the edge of the universe, while matter tends to congregate within the center of the Universe in our reality. And the correlation between gravity and electromagnetism is analogous to flowing water; electromagnetism is akin to waves in the water, while gravity is akin to the action of the current.

TheRedneck


[edit on 11/4/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Absolutely fascinating posting. I have thought along the same lines when trying to understand gravity. In my thought experiments, I had used the ZPE for what you are calling "the continuum".

I always had the problem explaining what happens to the ZPE after it is accelerated into the mass that attracts it. You nicely close that loop


So whatever we call this medium that gives rise to gravity, the question is: "How can we prevent it from affecting a body?".

In other words, once you can "shield" your body or car or plane or round saucer-shaped disk
so that the medium doesn't affect it, you cancel out gravity and hover in the air.

What we would need is "a conduit" above us (considering the medium us coming straight down). If the medium dissappears before it enters our device, we shouldn't feel any gravity.

Or instead of a conduit, some sort of field causing the medium to flow around our device. Again we wouldn't feel any gravity if the medium would flow around the device.

Just thinking out loud


So thinking about these experiments with very fast rotating objects (magnets or superconducting disks or metallic fluids), how could we explain a reduction in gravity due to this rotation?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by posterboy

Thanks for responding posterboy!

Whatever we call it, continuum, energetic ether, ZPE, or magic fairy dust cloud, it's still the same thing. Words just don't seem capable of explaining this concept.


So thinking about these experiments with very fast rotating objects (magnets or superconducting disks or metallic fluids), how could we explain a reduction in gravity due to this rotation?



Er, do you have a link to this phenomenon? It does indeed fit into other areas of my research (predicted by my calculations), and I have not heard of this actually being experienced. As mentioned, this is a closure of one specific train of thought and does not include everything I have in mind, both because my other thoughts are incomplete at this time and because they may have patentable implications.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Er, do you have a link to this phenomenon? It does indeed fit into other areas of my research (predicted by my calculations), and I have not heard of this actually being experienced.


I'm way out of my element here, but you might try looking into the gravity shielding work done by the Russian scientist, Evgency (Eugene) Podkletnov.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by yeahright]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by posterboy


So thinking about these experiments with very fast rotating objects (magnets or superconducting disks or metallic fluids), how could we explain a reduction in gravity due to this rotation?



Er, do you have a link to this phenomenon?


Well, I am not sure mainstream scientists would readily accept this of course. But there are some concepts out there and claims of observed weight reduction of objects suspended over such rotating masses.

Here are some links:

Wikipedia - Anti-gravity
Excited Superconductor to drive Gravity Wheel
Google : Magnetohydrodynamics gravity



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright

I'm way out of my element here, but you might try looking into the gravity shielding work done by the Russian scientist, Evgency (Eugene) Podkletnov.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by yeahright]


Yeah, here is a link to an article about his claims:

Eugene Podkletnov: Breaking the Law of Gravity



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by posterboy
 


Yes, I noticed him referenced in your Gravity Wheel link above
I'm of the belief that the next big breakthrough will just as likely come from an engineer like Podkletnov or layman, rather than a mainstream physicist who's sometimes so blinded by the conventional dogma, they can't see beyond what "can't be done".

Not that there's anything wrong with physicists, bless 'em all. But when you want to get weird, out there where the breakthroughs happen, you just might do as well to head to somebody's garage.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
This may be a lil off beat, op, but lets simplify this.


With a question..

Explain scientifically how a helicopter gains altitute. Also in a scientific description and explanation how.

Speaking of space and ahem time..




if I remember correctly science does not trully understand the nature of how a Helicopter works..



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by posterboy
 


Not that there's anything wrong with physicists, bless 'em all. But when you want to get weird, out there where the breakthroughs happen, you just might do as well to head to somebody's garage.



..... and hope the guy is still alive



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bicent76

if I remember correctly science does not trully understand the nature of how a Helicopter works..





posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bicent76

A helicopter gains altitude using wings, just like an airplane. The difference is that the wings (or blades as they are called on a helicopter) are not fixed to the vehicle and move independently. That means they can be smaller since they can have more velocity.

We do indeed know how a helicopter works; we just cannot explain all the turbulent conditions that develop due to the speed of the blades in air and their circular motion as opposed to that of fixed wings (engineers are getting pretty close though). The principle, however, is that of aerodynamics as opposed to astrophysics and quantum mechanics.

So yeah, it's off topic, but I don't mind answering.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


so in no way could the blades be going faster then time to gain the space needed then? Just a thought, I did speak someone in my travels in life who explain how bizarre helicopters were. Just thought I could help try unlock an idea...
Indeed thou it does create lift..



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
So for propulsion purposes, we need to find a way to be able to manipulate the immediate medium around us. If we could somehow cause it to flow in a certain direction through us, we would accelerate in the same direction and by manipulating it, we would also be able to cancel out inertia, making sudden 90 degree turns possible, or instant full stops and take-offs.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by posterboy
So for propulsion purposes, we need to find a way to be able to manipulate the immediate medium around us. If we could somehow cause it to flow in a certain direction through us, we would accelerate in the same direction and by manipulating it, we would also be able to cancel out inertia, making sudden 90 degree turns possible, or instant full stops and take-offs.


that is heavy... basically what you say is manipulate speed of time, to where it can be harnessed by the medium, the space around us or ourselves. To do such a thing, is a thought lost in time, or in currents.. Cool thinking man, cool topic also.. Need a MIT grad or profes. to come help...



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by posterboy

That is precisely correct. If we could somehow 'trap' this continuum around an object, it could then be possible to move without inertia, since our inertia is determined by our acceleration through the medium which surrounds us.

Strangely enough, this is the 'theory' behind the fictitious 'Warp Drive' of Star Trek fame: it creates a bubble of space-time around the ship which is then moved through the space-time of the normal Universe, allowing faster-than-light travel. It actually seems plausible, until we realize that the only thing (according to my theory) that can create space-time is anti-matter, which so far we have not been able to create in anything resembling abundance.

Also, let us assume for a moment that we could somehow create a bubble of antimatter around a ship that would produce space-time within that bubble. What would keep the antimatter from continuing to expand away form itself in an ever-increasing sphere? Also, it would be creating space-time both inside and outside the bubble, so the bubble would not be separated from normal space-time.

There may be ways to move space-time (other than via matter pulling on it) as opposed to creating it, but I can't go into that much deeper at this time. Sorry.

TheRedneck


[edit on 11/4/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I love this thread, I am often playing around with these idea. But if you "can't go into that much deeper at this time", then I guess this thread ends here


Let's see, I thought about getting some super-strong earth magnets or whatever they are called and mount them on a disk, rotating that disk as fast as I could. Can we buy electric motors somewhere that will run on 110V at thousands of RPMs? Probably not



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by posterboy

Oh, no, it doesn't end here. I simply can't comment on something I may or may not be actively pursuing.


This thread outlines the foundation for all that though. Just because I can't explain the specifics does not mean those specifics do not exist, nor does it mean that yourself (and others) cannot continue to speculate on them.

As for motors that rotate at thousands of RPMs? Sure you can buy them!

* www.allelectronics.com... - a great surplus source of inexpensive motors.
* www.goldmine-elec.com... - another great surplus source fo small motors.
www.surpluscenter.com... - a little pricier, but larger motors as well
www.electronicsurplus.com... - more larger surplus motors
* www.kansaswindpower.net... - A good place to find hard-to-find motors

(* indicates suppliers I have actually used recently and been pleased with)

There are plenty more. Motors are available up to 10,000 RPM, and even the larger motors usually run around 2000 - 5000 RPM. If that's not fast enough, check out www.sdp-si.com... for stock gears to speed things up even further.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Hi, light fans !

Speaking about fast rotation, and its effect on gravity, see:

Enterprisemission Von_Braun SECRET
www.enterprisemission.com...

Antigravity Berkeley UNIVERSITY
www.nuc.berkeley.edu...

Electric Flying Machines Thomas T Brown
www.hbci.com...

This is not sc.fi. There is a chapter named: GRAVITATORS.

BLue skies.




top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join