Science > Physics > On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2006 01:21:35 AM |
| Object: |
On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
I was listening to an old Art Bell broadcast today featuring a Dr.
Anderson,
physicist, who had or has labs on Long Island, whose group were working
on
a thing which they called a Time Warp Field.
And they used an array of lasers, and a gas re-agent, and an
electro-magnetic
filed, to create a field, whereby they were able to slow and speed up
time rates within this field.
And he claimed to have done experiemnts on plants etc and clocks,
including mechanical clocks, which proved this beyond a doubt.
It was written up in many journals and they appeared on a few TV
programs, and they were working on the medical ramifications,
of desease stasis etc. Perhaps you heard that broadcast a few
years ago, if not it is available in the archives or Kazaa or
whereever.
At any rate, I thought I would offer my opinion on what was at work
there,
since they seemed somewhat unsure of what they had done.
In order to understand the effect, you need to use a slightly different
model,
one similar to the raisin bread loaf.
As the universe expands, that is the arrow of time. We say the universe
is
this old, because it is this large. Simple.
Yet, time rates differ in proximity to mass. Einsetin et al. Time
dilation etc.
The reason for this is that time itself is in the atom.
So your loaf of raisin bread is expanding, and so are the raisins
within it.
All the mass in the universe could not fit in the singularity which
preceded the
big bang, so obviuously matter is expanding as well as the space
between things.
And the Lorentz equasions show how easily matter changes relative size,
as we near
the sun for instance.
So, basically, what the good doctor was doing, was using a pulsed laser
array, to
create the same effect used to create Einstein Bosen condensate.
They were dampening the vibrations of the atoms within the field.
Yet, they did not supercool the atoms. They were merely dampening them
enough,
to slow time rates, and within the field, things were interacting as
they would under
normal conditions, just at a different relative time rate.
They also did the reverse and sped up time.
In both instances slowing or speeding up about to a factor of three.
Slowing to 35% then they had a problem with the stability of the field
and experienced dopplering. Which killed the plants within the field.
why the factor of three, is probably because of the relationship of 3
with
a sphere and pi etc.
Now the dopplering is at the border area of the field, between the two
time frames
all the time, but this border area enlarged, if they slowed the time
rate too
far, until the entire interior of the field was experiencing doppler
effects.
They were unable to prevent that from occurring.
And the reason is quite simple, and that is, that when they were using
waves,
or particles if you prefer to slow down the atoms, at a point, the
waves cancel out.
When you reach that point, you create a type of EM vacuum, and then the
EM waves
propogate like a superconductor and crash into each other, which causes
the doppler
effect.
It is just like the speed of sound, a barrier you have to cross to go
further.
Yet, it is a problem crossing it, because of the effect it has on the
interior of
the field.
The atoms are producing spherical waves, that radiate out, and at the
radius
of the electron, we call this an electron. The vibrations of the
nulceus, propogate these waves.
As matter expands along with the universe, it sends out EM waves, and
if you
dampen those waves, you can create a condensate.
If you excite those waves, you get radiation.
You can feel the pressure of those waves, by holding two magnets close
together.
Hold them one way, the waves cancel out, and the magnets attract.
Hold them another, and they repel. They are actually flowing out, as
you might expect,
as opposed to some magical invisible, force field, wait a minute, I
guess that is just
what it is isn't it.
When two magnets which are in the same frequency range interact.
What keeps us from interacting with them, is that carbon is less
orderly,
in its wave progation and we are on a different set of frequencies.
at any rate, all atoms still send out waves in just the same way.
The notion however of actually going into negative time, is a different
story
entirely.
Time is an arrow, from the center of the nucleus, to the radius of the
electron.
The universe is expending, with a lot of force. The nuclear force.
So the possibility of reversing that, within a controlled environment,
has been done.
Numerous times as a matter of fact.
Usually in Bimini Island or the Nevada Desert or a couple miles under
the ground,
where the explosion can be controlled and the subsequent mushroom
cloud,
contained.
Anyways it was an interesting program.
Give it a listen if you like time discussions.
It was quite good.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
03 Mar 2006 01:44:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I was listening to an old Art Bell broadcast today featuring a Dr.
Anderson,
physicist, who had or has labs on Long Island, whose group were working
on
a thing which they called a Time Warp Field.
And they used an array of lasers, and a gas re-agent, and an
electro-magnetic
filed, to create a field, whereby they were able to slow and speed up
time rates within this field.
And he claimed to have done experiemnts on plants etc and clocks,
including mechanical clocks, which proved this beyond a doubt.
It was written up in many journals and they appeared on a few TV
programs, and they were working on the medical ramifications,
of desease stasis etc. Perhaps you heard that broadcast a few
years ago, if not it is available in the archives or Kazaa or
whereever.
At any rate, I thought I would offer my opinion on what was at work
there,
since they seemed somewhat unsure of what they had done.
In order to understand the effect, you need to use a slightly different
model,
one similar to the raisin bread loaf.
As the universe expands, that is the arrow of time. We say the universe
is
this old, because it is this large. Simple.
Yet, time rates differ in proximity to mass. Einsetin et al. Time
dilation etc.
The reason for this is that time itself is in the atom.
So your loaf of raisin bread is expanding, and so are the raisins
within it.
All the mass in the universe could not fit in the singularity which
preceded the
big bang, so obviuously matter is expanding as well as the space
between things.
And the Lorentz equasions show how easily matter changes relative size,
as we near
the sun for instance.
So, basically, what the good doctor was doing, was using a pulsed laser
array, to
create the same effect used to create Einstein Bosen condensate.
Did I say Bosen? I meant Bose.
(I have boats on the brain or something)
At any rate, all they were doing, was shielding a small area, with a
strong field,
which had several components, but all particles really just on various
wavelengths.
Shielding that area, from the rest of the universe, and its bombardment
of em waves,
which under normal conditions, affect our own time rate, because our
time
rate, is how our atoms interact with each other with the forces.
Normal every day molecular activity is influenced and the rate at which
the
interactions occur, can change a bit and it does at acceleration, and
near a strong gravity well.
Anything that affects the way the waves are propogated by a nucleus,
affects the rate of time, because after all, time is nothing more,
than a series of events, which at their root, are the interactions of
the elements.
He also mentioned that he expected that time travel would have a mental
component, and that is more plausible than travelling into negative
time. In order to escape into negative time, you would have to open up
a worm hole, and escape this universe.
To create a void, in the em background.
That is a worm hole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
03 Mar 2006 01:59:46 AM |
|
|
You see we as thinking beings, have access to that place outside of the
universe of em radiation, where there is no time. And he speaks about
the Budhist philosophy in a vague holistic all out there sort of all is
one kinda way, but it is simply that outside of the
atom, and its interactions, there simply is no time.
Because time is a product of atomic interactions.
Thought, uses electrochemical processes, to interact with the physical
universe,
but it is just as much outside of it, as part of it.
But the notion of time, is a mechanical thing, so even if you escaped,
into
a wormhole, how would you navigate back, to some place and time, in the
past?
As time passes, the universe expans, and if you were to stop expanding
along
with it, you would be quite small, quite fast.
It is assumed however that if you enetered a worm hole, you would
continue to
expand at the same rate, but really, isn't it more likely that you
would
suffere a sudden explosive expansion, with nothing pressing in on you
on all sides
as it does now? The em pressure of the universe.
Not unlike gas pressure really.
So basically, the only real hope is to maybe send singnals, to the
past.
Travel into the future would be quite easy.
Travel into the past?
Well, who knows, it doesn't seem possible to me according to what
I know about physics, even if you were to harness the energy of the
sun.
Because if you open up a wormhole, you will evaporate, if you enter
inside it.
But then I have been wrong before. And sure, there are those who say it
can be done.
http://tinyurl.com/q3bsc
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
03 Mar 2006 08:44:28 AM |
|
|
On 2 Mar 2006 23:21:35 -0800, wrote:
I was listening to an old Art Bell broadcast today featuring a Dr.
Anderson,
physicist, who had or has labs on Long Island, whose group were working
on
a thing which they called a Time Warp Field.
And they used an array of lasers, and a gas re-agent, and an
electro-magnetic
filed, to create a field, whereby they were able to slow and speed up
time rates within this field.
And he claimed to have done experiemnts on plants etc and clocks,
including mechanical clocks, which proved this beyond a doubt.
It was written up in many journals and they appeared on a few TV
programs, and they were working on the medical ramifications,
of desease stasis etc. Perhaps you heard that broadcast a few
years ago, if not it is available in the archives or Kazaa or
whereever.
At any rate, I thought I would offer my opinion on what was at work
there,
since they seemed somewhat unsure of what they had done.
In order to understand the effect, you need to use a slightly different
model,
one similar to the raisin bread loaf.
As the universe expands, that is the arrow of time. We say the universe
is
this old, because it is this large. Simple.
Yet, time rates differ in proximity to mass. Einsetin et al. Time
dilation etc.
The reason for this is that time itself is in the atom.
So your loaf of raisin bread is expanding, and so are the raisins
within it.
All the mass in the universe could not fit in the singularity which
preceded the
big bang, so obviuously matter is expanding as well as the space
between things.
And the Lorentz equasions show how easily matter changes relative size,
as we near
the sun for instance.
So, basically, what the good doctor was doing, was using a pulsed laser
array, to
create the same effect used to create Einstein Bosen condensate.
They were dampening the vibrations of the atoms within the field.
Yet, they did not supercool the atoms. They were merely dampening them
enough,
to slow time rates, and within the field, things were interacting as
they would under
normal conditions, just at a different relative time rate.
They also did the reverse and sped up time.
In both instances slowing or speeding up about to a factor of three.
Slowing to 35% then they had a problem with the stability of the field
and experienced dopplering. Which killed the plants within the field.
why the factor of three, is probably because of the relationship of 3
with
a sphere and pi etc.
Now the dopplering is at the border area of the field, between the two
time frames
all the time, but this border area enlarged, if they slowed the time
rate too
far, until the entire interior of the field was experiencing doppler
effects.
They were unable to prevent that from occurring.
And the reason is quite simple, and that is, that when they were using
waves,
or particles if you prefer to slow down the atoms, at a point, the
waves cancel out.
When you reach that point, you create a type of EM vacuum, and then the
EM waves
propogate like a superconductor and crash into each other, which causes
the doppler
effect.
It is just like the speed of sound, a barrier you have to cross to go
further.
Yet, it is a problem crossing it, because of the effect it has on the
interior of
the field.
The atoms are producing spherical waves, that radiate out, and at the
radius
of the electron, we call this an electron. The vibrations of the
nulceus, propogate these waves.
As matter expands along with the universe, it sends out EM waves, and
if you
dampen those waves, you can create a condensate.
If you excite those waves, you get radiation.
You can feel the pressure of those waves, by holding two magnets close
together.
Hold them one way, the waves cancel out, and the magnets attract.
Hold them another, and they repel. They are actually flowing out, as
you might expect,
as opposed to some magical invisible, force field, wait a minute, I
guess that is just
what it is isn't it.
When two magnets which are in the same frequency range interact.
What keeps us from interacting with them, is that carbon is less
orderly,
in its wave progation and we are on a different set of frequencies.
at any rate, all atoms still send out waves in just the same way.
The notion however of actually going into negative time, is a different
story
entirely.
Time is an arrow, from the center of the nucleus, to the radius of the
electron.
The universe is expending, with a lot of force. The nuclear force.
So the possibility of reversing that, within a controlled environment,
has been done.
Numerous times as a matter of fact.
Usually in Bimini Island or the Nevada Desert or a couple miles under
the ground,
where the explosion can be controlled and the subsequent mushroom
cloud,
contained.
Anyways it was an interesting program.
Give it a listen if you like time discussions.
It was quite good.
This is all Star-Trek voodoo physics. It's all *****, the same
***** being preached by Brian "superstring" Greene". And I'm not
surprised it was on Art Bell's crackpot show. The truth is that time
is not a variable. Clocks and processes slow down or speed up but time
cannot change, by definition and simple logic. Nothing can move in
spacetime for this very reason.
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
More Nasty Little Truth About Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
Wake up, goddamnit!
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
04 Mar 2006 04:56:52 AM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
This is all Star-Trek voodoo physics. It's all *****, the same
***** being preached by Brian "superstring" Greene". And I'm not
surprised it was on Art Bell's crackpot show. The truth is that time
is not a variable. Clocks and processes slow down or speed up but time
cannot change, by definition and simple logic. Nothing can move in
spacetime for this very reason.
Um, things move in spacetime.
And I am sure you have heard of time dilation.
Time is a localized phenomena.
Twin paradox etc, I am sure you have heard of that.
Atomic clocks one at altitude one at sea level, keep different time.
Clocks are how we measure time.
Atomic clocks, are processes which are directly linked to time,
visa vis, using cesium atoms to tell time, cesium being an element
all the elements being related by their frequency of vibration,
ipso facto all elements on the same scale as it were, not varying
in their nature, and hence all elements exist in the same
way, vibrating in their own frequency range, and frequency
as in frequent, as in related to time, the time it takes for
them to vibrate.
At any rate, I have no idea if Anderson is a crackpot, or if
John Titor was here from the future for that matter either.
I think Michio Kukoo is often wrong in his interpretations and
likes string theory far too much.
I think Hawking is wishy washy,
and I think Penrose thinks about stuff far too much.
Sarafatti, has been at the fatties, a little too often,
Feynman speaks like a mob boss, who on earth
could ever take him seriously,
and I think the fact that John Huchison never received
the Nobel Prize, proves the entire field of study,
has it's head up it's arse, and doesn't know half
of what they pretend to know, and knows little,
about anything at all.
http://www.hutchisoneffectonline.com/
Ostriches, with their heads in the sand.
That is what I think.
Now astro-physics, that's a horse of a different color.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/clem2nd/slide_26.html
Read em and weep.
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
More Nasty Little Truth About Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
Wake up, goddamnit!
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
04 Mar 2006 05:25:13 AM |
|
|
Now astro-physics, that's a horse of a different color.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/clem2nd/slide_26.html
Read em and weep.
What is so cool about astro-physics you ask?
Well take a look at that slide of the moon, and read the legend, surely
there
are one or two who can read a graph out there, and what does it tell
you?
Zecharia? Zecharia, are you out there Zecharia?
Is that where the Anunaki live Zacharia?
lol
All the interesting stuff in the universe went away when Art retired
I'll tell you.
For both sides, the believers, who no longer have rainbows to chase,
and the debunkers, who have no one to taunt any more.
And what ever happened to Nancy?
I was listening to David Sereda today. Nasa's UFO's and Art had
James Oberg, on there to debunk him.
Another classic Bell show, but the best?
When the lady calls up, and asks Al Beliek, if he was involved in the
sodomy
project at Montauk. and Al, good ol Al, confesses yes, he was one of
the
poor young boys who were shall we say, detained, in the facility, lol
I wish I could have seen Art 's face.
But you know, before he retired, Art was numero uno in the industry.
He had more affiliates than Carter had pills.
He walked away with an award for top spot.
Time travel, and other dimensions, those were the good shows.
Remember the guy, who calls in on Sept 11, and talks about the master
plan,
from S4, years before 911. Like 5 or 6 years at least before the
catastrophe.
And good old Zecharia Sitchin, still waiting for the 12th planet.
And the comets? Good lord they used to come out whenever Art mentioned
the word.
Next thing you know there were comets. Flying into Jupiter, coming out
of nowhere.
I think it was probably his mass consciousness thing causing it.
That's probably why he retired.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
04 Mar 2006 05:44:23 AM |
|
|
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/
Incidentally, if anyone is wondering where the woo woos went, after Art
retired,
you can find a pack of em here, sitting up late at night, waiting for
the
world to come to an end.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
04 Mar 2006 03:00:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 02:56:52 -0800, rick_sobie wrote:
Traveler wrote:
This is all Star-Trek voodoo physics. It's all *****, the same
***** being preached by Brian "superstring" Greene". And I'm not
surprised it was on Art Bell's crackpot show. The truth is that time is
not a variable. Clocks and processes slow down or speed up but time
cannot change, by definition and simple logic. Nothing can move in
spacetime for this very reason.
Um, things move in spacetime.
No, they do not. A single moving point in the (x,y,z) space becomes a
strand of spaghetti in the (x,y,z,t) space; if it is undergoing
accelerated motion in an otherwise undistorted space, it will be curved as
well. (One can think of it as a time exposure on a piece of rather weird
4-dimensional film, if the point is attached to, say, a peanut bulb or
LED.) A moving car becomes an extruded something-or-other. A piece of
unmoving cardboard becomes a long rod.
Admittedly, it's an odd point, and probably not all that worth bothering
with, but moving "in" spacetime is not a phraseology that works,
especially for Louis Savain. (It works to some extent for me, after some
adjustments, but points move in space, not in spacetime.)
It's about the only thing I can agree with Louis on at this point, and
it's a very *fine* strand of spaghetti. :-) Also, the lattice of that
spacetime -- which is just a coordinate system, after all -- is going to
distort because of the Lorentz or the generalized GR tensor, relative to
that curved strand, because of the velocity (v = dP/dt). I'm frankly not
sure *what* it will look like.
At this point it's probably best to use a variant of the Minkowski
distance-metric, which is invariant under the Lorentz:
D(x,y,z,t,x',y',z',t') = sqrt((x-x')^2+(y-y')^2+(z-z')^2-c^2(t-t')^2)
Or one can move within a 4-D space with complex coordinates, using w = ict
and a more standard, if rather naive, metric:
D(x,y,z,w,x',y',z',w') = sqrt((x-x')^2+(y-y')^2+(z-z')^2+(w-w')^2)
In such a space, if one defines v = icx/w (or v = x/(w/(ic)), one gets:
x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (x+ivw/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
w' = (w-ivx/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
And I am sure you have heard of time dilation.
No such thing within *one* reference frame. With *two* reference frames,
of course, things get interesting, mostly because the time dilation effect
that's observed is not the gamma factor, but the factor
sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) (if the two are receding from one another at
velocity v), because of finite lightspeed. A careful computation of what
happens to two consecutive light pulses generated from O and received by
A, taking into account A's immobility *within his own coordinate system*,
will give this result.
Time is a localized phenomena.
More or less.
Twin paradox etc, I am sure you have heard of that.
I would hope so. Certainly *I've* heard of it, and it turns out
t'=t/gamma. Of course as usually phrased one of the twins will turn into
a squished pancake anyway, unless one takes almost a year to accelerate to
(Newtonian) lightspeed, if one assumes a "Star Trek"-like vessel except
that the saucer portion is turned sideways.
299792458 m/s / (9.805 N/kg) = 30575467 seconds, or about 354 days.
If one wants to be brutal about it, one might reduce that to 35.4 days but
10 "g's" is very punishing to fighter pilots in short turns; to experience
10 "g's" for more than a month would probably lay the hypothetical
spacefarer flat on his back, if not kill him outright after a few minutes
because of asphyxiation, blood pooling, or what not.
The good news, of course, is that particles such as the muon are far
more tolerant of this sort of acceleration, and can be used to verify the
time dilation/twin paradox effect.
Atomic clocks one at altitude one at sea level, keep different time.
t'/t = (1+gh/c^2), if I'm not mistaken. (There are also gravitational
anomalies.)
Clocks are how we measure time.
And about the only method by which one can contemplate doing so. :-)
Atomic clocks, are processes which are directly linked to time, visa vis,
using cesium atoms to tell time, cesium being an element all the elements
being related by their frequency of vibration, ipso facto all elements on
the same scale as it were, not varying in their nature, and hence all
elements exist in the same way, vibrating in their own frequency range,
and frequency as in frequent, as in related to time, the time it takes for
them to vibrate.
I'm not 100% sure of that, mostly because the atoms are in free-fall but
that free-fall implies motion. If an atom falls freely from rest for
1/9192631770 of a second, it will fall a distance of about
5.8015 * 10^-20 m; for various reasons the active region of a perfect
cesium clock will therefore be about 1.4504 *10^-20 m (moving up to
apex to moving down), if one assumes a perfect clock that can measure the
atom as it's emitting that wavelength. During that time the start velocity
will be +1.0666 * 10^-9 m/s and the end velocity will be -1.0666 * 10^-9
m/s, which results in a gamma corrective factor (and theoretical clock
error) of about 1 + 6.32713 * 10^-36.
So OK, 99.9999...9% sure. :-)
That's arguably the absolute best we can do with that clock. Darned
good, since real clocks have an error maybe of 1 in 10^18 or so, last I
looked, and I for one would presume that the phased lock loop circuitry
would require several, if not hundreds, of wavelengths to adjust itself
properly. Also, the active region would probably be a fraction of the
actual wavelength, which is in the microwave region, and about 3.26 cm.
I'd have to look; I'm not a clockmaker, just a clockwatcher. :-)
Of course considering that the GPS delta is about 4.4647 * 10^-10, that
10^18 is more than enough accuracy to show the delta. It's also accurate
enough to measure the delta between two clocks, one of which flies to
London and back (a modification/reprisal of the famous Hafele-Keating
experiment).
[rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
04 Mar 2006 04:42:09 PM |
|
|
Two clocks previously synchronized, and still synchronized, but set one
light second apart will show each to the other a difference of one second's
time. Clock A and Clock C, the real clocks, will still be synchronized.
Clock B, the pseudo-clock, the light image of either clock A or clock C
traveling [between] clock A and clock B, will be the only clock of the three
that is ["rubber sheet" stretched] out of sync to a final amount of time of
one second's difference.
Differences in velocities between two clocks A and C are precisely the
same thing as differences in distances between those same two clocks A and
C. Again there will be the presence of pseudo-clock B traveling between the
two, A to C and C to A -- parallel sequentially rather than sequentially of
course, and still DEALING ONLY IN WHATEVER THE DIFFERENTIAL DISTANCE IS
[[BETWEEN]] A and C!
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
04 Mar 2006 06:00:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:42:09 +0000, G. L. Bradford wrote:
Two clocks previously synchronized, and still synchronized, but set one
light second apart will show each to the other a difference of one
second's time. Clock A and Clock C, the real clocks, will still be
synchronized. Clock B, the pseudo-clock, the light image of either clock A
or clock C traveling [between] clock A and clock B, will be the only clock
of the three that is ["rubber sheet" stretched] out of sync to a final
amount of time of one second's difference.
Differences in velocities between two clocks A and C are precisely the
same thing as differences in distances between those same two clocks A and
C. Again there will be the presence of pseudo-clock B traveling between
the two, A to C and C to A -- parallel sequentially rather than
sequentially of course, and still DEALING ONLY IN WHATEVER THE
DIFFERENTIAL DISTANCE IS [[BETWEEN]] A and C!
GLB
And if the one clock is standing on the Earth and the other on the Moon?
Would that make a difference? (In GR, it would.)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
04 Mar 2006 11:42:21 PM |
|
|
And if the one clock is standing on the Earth and the other on the Moon?
Would that make a difference? (In GR, it would.)
Remember Eionstein's the difference between k and k'
There are two things which affect the way we age for instance.
Age being the natural occuring processes of atoms doing their
mechanical
business.
When the gravity is strong, they are prevented from running along as
they would
in their normal state.The same as in accelleration. The normal state,
things are
chugging along, and that is why gravity, is like accelleration.
(The Elevator gedanken of Einstein.)
And that is why Special Relativity, is like General Relativity, in that
there are
relativistic effects, in both cases, accelleration, with SR and
gravitation with GR.
But what is it exactly, that happens in the atom?
Well it gains mass.
And the time it takes for one hertz to occur, between the nucleus and
the
electron radius, changes.
One vibration of the atom, is either faster or slower.
But gravity and accelleration affect all elements so your entire body,
still performing as it would normaly, ages differently as in the case
of the
Twins paradox.
Really there is far more to the universe than is discussed here and I
think
most people more and more see the scientific community in a place
where they find they can't even begin to discuss, the real interesting
bits,
because they don't even have a framework for discussion.
I mean you have a look at the John Titor time travel stuff, and there
is an image,
of a guy, holding a laser pen, and blowing smoke from a cigar so you
can see
the light emitted from the laser, and the light, coming from his laser
pen, is bent
right over into an arc, inside this gravitational field, being
generated by his
General Electric Time Machine, that he brought back with him from the
future.
Yet if you hear what his predictions were and all that was said, and
really
I don't think any of it, was even close. Although he might have been
on a paralell timeline, but Occam's razor and well, who knows really.
I am convinced, that time travel exists, forward and back,
and that there are those who know without question,
events even to the mundane, into the future as if they could look it up
or watch a video screen. I have been convinced of that.
But still everything I know about physics says you can't do it.
So then it must be into the supernatural, where almost anything goes I
guess.
Once you shed your body, OK, who knows what the truth is behind the
curtain,
but as long as you are chained to this mortal coil, your atoms, are
sensitive to
everything, like heat and cold and you can only exist within a certain
amount
of G's. We are frail like walking pudding, when it comes to the forces.
Get a little shock from an electric wire and it's omigawd, I almost
died.
A little microwave radiation and your cooked.
If time travel was a simple matter, things would be popping into our
time,
and leaving it, like socks in a dryer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. L. Bradford" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
05 Mar 2006 03:55:48 AM |
|
|
<rick_sobie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141537341.501031.206500@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
And if the one clock is standing on the Earth and the other on the Moon?
Would that make a difference? (In GR, it would.)
Remember Eionstein's the difference between k and k'
There are two things which affect the way we age for instance.
Age being the natural occuring processes of atoms doing their
mechanical
business.
When the gravity is strong, they are prevented from running along as
they would
in their normal state.The same as in accelleration. The normal state,
things are
chugging along, and that is why gravity, is like accelleration.
(The Elevator gedanken of Einstein.)
And that is why Special Relativity, is like General Relativity, in that
there are
relativistic effects, in both cases, accelleration, with SR and
gravitation with GR.
But what is it exactly, that happens in the atom?
Well it gains mass.
And the time it takes for one hertz to occur, between the nucleus and
the
electron radius, changes.
One vibration of the atom, is either faster or slower.
But gravity and accelleration affect all elements so your entire body,
still performing as it would normaly, ages differently as in the case
of the
Twins paradox.
Really there is far more to the universe than is discussed here and I
think
most people more and more see the scientific community in a place
where they find they can't even begin to discuss, the real interesting
bits,
because they don't even have a framework for discussion.
I mean you have a look at the John Titor time travel stuff, and there
is an image,
of a guy, holding a laser pen, and blowing smoke from a cigar so you
can see
the light emitted from the laser, and the light, coming from his laser
pen, is bent
right over into an arc, inside this gravitational field, being
generated by his
General Electric Time Machine, that he brought back with him from the
future.
Yet if you hear what his predictions were and all that was said, and
really
I don't think any of it, was even close. Although he might have been
on a paralell timeline, but Occam's razor and well, who knows really.
I am convinced, that time travel exists, forward and back,
and that there are those who know without question,
events even to the mundane, into the future as if they could look it up
or watch a video screen. I have been convinced of that.
But still everything I know about physics says you can't do it.
So then it must be into the supernatural, where almost anything goes I
guess.
Once you shed your body, OK, who knows what the truth is behind the
curtain,
but as long as you are chained to this mortal coil, your atoms, are
sensitive to
everything, like heat and cold and you can only exist within a certain
amount
of G's. We are frail like walking pudding, when it comes to the forces.
Get a little shock from an electric wire and it's omigawd, I almost
died.
A little microwave radiation and your cooked.
If time travel was a simple matter, things would be popping into our
time,
and leaving it, like socks in a dryer.
You are missing the simple from Special Relativity. The time travel that
springs from SR does not address anything like gravity or any other force of
nature. It does not address living longer without looking much older due to
conditions natural to your own condition. It addresses travel only
concerning velocity and the speed of light. Leaping further into the future
as you supposedly approach the speed of light. Reversing direction and
leaping into the past if you supposedly surpass the speed of light. The
problem that nags at physicists is that by interpreting time, velocity, and
the constant of the speed of light the way that they interpret them, it is
impossible to have the one without having the other (the mirror reverse).
And it is impossible. That is, the whole thing is impossible. A
misinterpretation. A very bad misinterpretation.
You can never approach the speed of light, no more than you can ever
approach the horizon of Earth. It will stay constant to you at all
velocities. The fact that light has three dimensions, or three facets,
rather than one never enters the SR picture. Wavelength and frequency have
meaning regarding time.
What it means is that 300,000 kps will be 300,000 kps at A doing a vastly
different velocity than B. But 300,000 kps will also be the same 300,000 kps
at B. A's 300,000 kps constant will not be B's 300,000 kps constant, and
vice-versa, only [[BETWEEN]] A and B ("between" not being "at"). For well
over a century, and still in place in most school books and minds of
teachers and professors, "at" applies only to one end of the twain,
"between" and the other end "at" being one and the same (merged to just the
one, the "between") object or event.
At any rate now to seem to contradict myself, time travel is as simple a
matter as space travel. You look up at the heavens at night, you're not
seeing any space whatsoever, you are looking at time (rather, times
(plural)) only. Per that relative view, everything out there real and
simultaneous with us in the Universe is, relatively speaking, in the future.
Not in the present, relatively speaking, nor in the past, but in the future
somewhere (because only sometime in the future will the present reality,
rather the picture of it, the picture of all that is out there in the
observable universe, arrive here to us via light at the speed of light). So
whether or not you can comprehend it, anytime anyone will travel between
Earth and anywhere out there they will leaping ahead into some future
(relative to any observer at home on Earth, that is) in the doing. There
arrival at any point out there will not be observed by any observer on
Earth. Arrival will be observed later by the observer (light has to travel
from that point back here to Earth, taking time (light-time)). The traveler
is still somewhere in route between Earth and that distant point as far as
the observer on Earth will be concerned...even after the traveler has
already arrived at the other end. And that pseudo-traveler, or light image
traveler, or stretched time traveler, still in route -- long after the real
traveler will have already arrived at the other end -- is the only traveler
Earth's physicists have ever dealt in (the only they've ever described).
GLB
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
05 Mar 2006 11:50:27 AM |
|
|
Well I don't know about that, but you won't believe what just happened.
I accidentally set a referring url, to a referring url, and my browser
began to go supercritical. It began to approach light speed flipping
pages, and interference began on the raido, and I think I took a bath
of gamma rays off my monitor. I had inadvertently turned the fiber
optic backbone of the Internet, into the worlds largest supercollider.
The entire western seaboard began to be transported into the 5th
dimension. There were people, half emnmersed in water in bath tubs and
everything. It was horrible and terrible. But thankfully someone knew
what to do, and good old Al Beilek, went back to Montalk, where he was
once again detained, and while he was bent over a control panel there,
he managed to keep some presence of mind, while all around him people
were losing it, and he flipped a few switches, and shut that puppy
down. Phew.
I am thinking of writing a book about it and going on the Art Bell
show.
Were there UFO's? As big as a city block. But you couldn't see them,
because they were in the high ultraviolet range.
But since I was bathed in gamma rays, I see things, that you people
wouldn't believe.
Dan if you are out there, I wanted to invite Donna to play bridge
tonight. Have your angels call my angels baby, and we will play bridge.
You know I miss the good ol days when interesting scientific
discoveries used to change the world. Nowadays it seems there's nothing
new under the sun.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
05 Mar 2006 12:48:24 PM |
|
|
http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/TheBestofArtBell.mp3
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
05 Mar 2006 02:17:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/ricksobie/TheBestofArtBell.mp3
How did our time travel experiment go on Friday?
Well me Mi~chelle and Charlize, went back to about 1777, to that town
where Jane was filming Cat Balolou, and we met up outside the saloon,
and went for a train ride.
Michelle was wearing a dress, I still can't figure out why she didn't
wear slacks, (you know she has the most amazing bum in slacks) Oh I
just have to show you, it is just so amazing....
http://img120.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc93&image=88890_Mi~chelle.jpg
anyways, so we boarded the train, and everything was going along
nicely, until these train robbers, burst into the train, and held us
hostage. They took everyone's watch and jewelry and stuff, and oh this
is difficult to tell, they, they made us do things, (sob) to each
other.
Yes it was a very frieghtening experience.
Anyways, we ended up at Jane's ranch there, and had some fun. I planted
Jane's ***** in the hay for a good long while, but it wasn't as good as
before she broke her hip. I am always so worried that she is going to
be in pain or something. So even though we were back in time in our
minds, I can't suspend disbelief regarding her today, and so I am
always checking, you know ' you're sure you're all right? OK just
checking...." ,
You know Jane and I go waaaay back. And really she was my dream girl
when I was young. We were meant for each other. We should have been
together, I think. But then she got married, first to some politician,
and then to the guy who owned CNN. He, well he made her do things. What
sort of things? Well the same sort of things I would have made her do
actually. He made her have sex with other women.
It's all there in her new book.
Too little too late if you ask me. Back when she was wearing those tan
jeans, in Cat Ballou, now that was when men were men and sheep were
nervous, but Jane? Good Lord she was one hot and nasty goddess back
then.
So needless to say we had a great time, and will probably head back
there next weekend.
Mi~chelle and Lacey love going back to the late 17 hundreds early 18
hundreds and so do I. It is a lot of fun.
Lacey?
Well we went out Saturday. I don't know why I didn't bring her Friday,
I probably should have but I just thought it would be nice to bring
Charlize for a change.
Oh I have to tell you Lacey, has the most amazing set of kookamongas,
oh my god.
I have to show you those as well. I probably shouldn't but well, it is
all in the interest of science after all. I am sure she won't mind.
http://img20.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc161&image=89796_LACEY.jpg
Mmmmm.....god I love science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
05 Mar 2006 02:40:27 PM |
|
|
You know what else I thought was pretty strange?
Well I rented Cat Ballou yesterday, and lo and behold, there was Jane,
and she signed me with her baby finger.
Yaw baby.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
05 Mar 2006 03:00:45 PM |
|
|
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1371/6232_0135.jpg
You know Lee MArvin, got an oscar, for best actor, for his role in Cat
Ballou. He did an amazing job in that flick. One of my all time
favorite actors to be sure. Lee Marvin. Dirty Dozen? That guy could
act.
Speaking of oscars, I guess the Academy Awards are on today.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
04 Mar 2006 07:56:30 AM |
|
|
[The insufferable pomposity of the ***** kissers of the physics
community is only surpassed by their insufferable stupidity.
ahahaha...]
On 4 Mar 2006 02:56:52 -0800, wrote:
Traveler wrote:
This is all Star-Trek voodoo physics. It's all *****, the same
***** being preached by Brian "superstring" Greene". And I'm not
surprised it was on Art Bell's crackpot show. The truth is that time
is not a variable. Clocks and processes slow down or speed up but time
cannot change, by definition and simple logic. Nothing can move in
spacetime for this very reason.
Um, things move in spacetime.
No they don't. I gave you a reference. The explanation apparently went
over your head because, like most ***** kissers, you're stupid as *****.
ahahaha...
And I am sure you have heard of time dilation.
There is no such thing since time is not a variable. Clocks can slow
down or speed up but time itself cannot change. A slowed down clock
simply measures longer intervals.
Time is a localized phenomena.
Time is not a phenomenon since it does not change. Movement is a
phenomenon because it is a change of position.
Twin paradox etc, I am sure you have heard of that.
I am sure you heard of ***** kissing. Too bad for you Einstein is dead
and all you can kiss is his dead *****. ahahaha...
Atomic clocks one at altitude one at sea level, keep different time.
So what?
Clocks are how we measure time.
No. They measure abstract non-varying intervals. Again, time does not
change and does not pass. Now, go dig up Godel's grave and worship the
dead fruitcake's ***** bones. ahahaha... That's how you can make
yourself useful. Otherwise, you are being a hindrance to progress in
physics and everything else.
Making phun of "physicists" is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=D0=AFelf?=" |
|
| Title: Religious people just aren't sober enough. |
05 Mar 2006 12:55:15 AM |
|
|
Yikes Rick_Sobie,
Perhaps the following will clear up some of some of your confusion,
I've posted it several times already today,
but you might not have been reading those threads.
Moutains of empirical evidence tells us that _All_ the laws of physics,
-- including the speed of light in a virtual vacuum --,
are _Observed_ to be, -- Locally --, the same everwhere.
We call that: Einstein's Principle_of_Relativity.
Imagine a triangle where the side opposite
is a function of how fast the cosmic ray, for example, is traveling.
Moving near the speed of light, black body radiation from the nucleus,
-- a standard clock --, would take that much longer to reach us.
That is to say, we _Observe_ that it's standard clock is ticking slower.
Locally, of course, the clock ticks at the same rate was it would here.
Because the time dialtion at a given gravitational potentional
is a function of special relativity and the escape velocity,
it seems reasonable to me that we are, in fact, moving that fast ourselves,
but in a cyclical fashion... and in more dimensions.
So... time is _Observed_ to be local, parochial. Best theory says that
time is, intrinsically, the fourth _Spatial_ dimension.
It's only unknowns, so_called randomness, that makes it seem otherwise.
But far too many here are drunk on religion, feeding on unknowns,
hating the certainty of their own eventual deaths... their dissipation.
All is, you are, confined as much temporally as spatially.
And that, of course, is what bothers so many here.
It's a topic more adult, more sober, than most can handle.
Religious people just aren't sober enough.
I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
What's worse, for these drunks here,
is that Entorpy is the fifth _Spatial_ dimension, a.k.a. cosmic time.
Counting light ticks of super cooled masers are how we define time.
Why did I mention black body radiation ? Because the rest is noise.
Atomic clocks are super cooled for a reason, as you know.
Lasers/Masers/Atom_Lasers are Bose_Einstein condensates... very cold.
At the picosecond level,
ambient heat and the lack of a true vacuum introduce _Huge_ errors.
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Entropy says:
The SI unit of entropy is J/K ( joule per kelvin ),
which is the same unit as heat capacity.
So... entropy goes to infinity at absolute zero,
-- e.g. at a virtual vacuum --,
and it approches zero when the temperature is infinite,
-- e.g. at a virtual singularity, such as the start of the big bang --.
But there never was such a start because
entropy is, most probably, an intrinsic property of all Mass_Energy,
the universe has just _Always_ been dissipating.
Should any find the strength to sober up, ha ha, I suggest they ponder this:
_ I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
_ All meaning is local, here and now, the rest is inane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: On the nature of space and time - time travel and Dr. Anderson |
05 Mar 2006 01:47:05 AM |
|
|
thread title re-instated
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
