Heavy Science. Time Travel.
- Thread starter Shadowprophet
- Start date
- Copy link Copy link
spacecase0
earth human
I have wondered about another explanation that I have never seen anyone mention,
electromagnetic waves can have forces that push themselves apart, now I know they travel at the speed of light, so they should not have "time" to spread out, but maybe given enough travel time, they might redshift that way.
but I have no idea how to test this idea
thank you
CasualBystander
Celestial
There are a number of objections to the tired light hypothesis.
For example - distant objects should be smaller. In an expanding universe distant objects appear larger because the light was emitted closer to us.
Gambeir
Celestial
Swearing is really my first and primary tool in effective communication skills. It's something acquired over decades of specialized tutoring. Nothing to worry about really. It's a tool used to get the attention of a mule when a 2" X 4" pine board isn't available to wack the mule on the head with, because as my father would often say; "first you have to get the attention of the mule: afterwards there might be communication." He was himself quite adept with blue speak and successfully raised 5 boys as well as guiding many hundreds of others in life as an influential male figure and teacher. I know that's true because till the day he died he would at times still receive letters or cards from students long past.
So swearing isn't really as bad a thing as some make it out to be.
Yes, but the idea is to get this back on track by laying a foundation which is mentally visual, simplified as it were, and afterwards these conflicting ideas may be examined with more clarity and less bitterness.
I appreciate the link and knowledge contained in the 113 pages, but I also understand that arxiv.org is owned by Cornell University. Papers from arxiv can only be expected to support the official version of reality: The same reality that this institution teaches and which students pay for.
arXiv.org e-Print archive
Meanwhile over at viXra.org open e-Print archive
"ViXra.org is an e-print archive set up as an alternative to the popular arXiv.org service owned by Cornell University. It has been founded by scientists who find they are unable to submit their articles to arXiv.org because of Cornell University's policy of endorsements and moderation designed to filter out e-prints that they consider inappropriate. ViXra is an open repository for new scientific articles. It does not endorse e-prints accepted on its website, neither does it review them against criteria such as correctness or author's credentials."
Thomas, as near as I can determine the idea comes from this conceptualization.
Have no idea where this image originated but I found it at this link.
FUNCTION FOLLOWS FORM in the Quantum world with a splitting pairing Fermion repelling Black Hole .
I'm sure you will be quite comfortable with the information found at that link as well.
Now then~ In so far as what to I'm interested in, and looking at this coordinate system of inter~laced tetrahedron patterns (cartographic concept), I can now begin to gather a glimpse of what this is all about, and how using this concept has implications for gravitational control. Provided of course that the rest of the ideas match up to explain gravity.
Last edited:
Gambeir
Celestial
Ah, so you're searching for an possible explanation to the Expand'0 planet model Kchoo? If so then I've been there myself and here's what I think in short hand.
In a way you could say so, but really I think that if there is validity to the idea then the energies which create matter would be coming in to planetary bodies from Brikeland Currents. Those are the primary connections to our own star and feed the earth primarily at the polar regions.
Yes: the more energy that a body of matter absorbs (say, as you heat bar of iron with a torch), the more mass-energy it possesses. But it takes a c^2 magnitude of energy to yield one unit of mass (in whatever units one chooses to use, cgs units or SI units or whatever), so matter would vaporize long before you could measure the mass increase. But there are other approaches, for example, some kind of flywheel that employs a field containment system to keep it from exploding at high energies. To date we've never been able to store enough energy to observe a mass increase in such a manner, but it's there.
I didn't say that it was a bad thing (smarter people tend to swear more, I've heard). But you don't usually cuss that much so you seemed agitated.So swearing isn't really as bad a thing as some make it out to be.
You're underestimating the adversarial process of modern science. Whenever scientists can blow a hole in the conventional models, they write papers about it, and sometimes win a Nobel Prize for finding such errors. Academic theoretical physics is more like a bar room brawl between eggheads, than it is some big club of conspirators dreaming up an "official narratives" about the nature of reality. This is clearly evident when one follows an on-going debate about some controversial idea, like the black hole information paradox, where things get very heated between adherents of the various sides of an issue, until an answer is found, and somebody goes home with slackened shoulders.
Chucking the entire academic body of physics out the window due to a misplaced distrust of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature is a terrible idea. Sure, it's not a perfect process, but it's the best one we've got. And when you throw in with the unpublished crowd at viXra instead, roughly 99% of what you'll find there is rubbish.
I don't know a suitable term for this "Quantum-FFF theory" but it doesn't even remotely resemble theoretical physics. Perhaps we could call it "abstract conceptual art?" The one guy writing about this idea, a Dutch architect, seems to be completely crackers, in my estimation.
From that link:
"Around black holes the Planck length is polarized with a vector array cross section in the form of a butterfly."
"Uhm, sure - pass the blunt dude," haha.
Look guys - I don't know why you're so willing to spend your precious time reading up about the bazillion crazy ideas that people publish on random websites and stuff...but are totally allergic to reading up on credible physical theories like GR. If you're in the mood for a walk on the wild side, you might even have a gander at Einstein-Cartan torsion field theory. There's lots of stuff to learn there - and as an added bonus, it's actually valid scientific reasoning so you won't be wasting your time.
It's a great impulse to search for flaws in the current models and to develop new hypotheses to expand the frontiers of theoretical physics - that's what professional theoretical physicists do every day. And once in awhile, they hit real pay dirt. It's all very exciting.
But to get in the game, you have to learn the prevailing physical theories first. That's the only way to know them well enough to find their limits and weaknesses, so you can apply pressure on those spots, and perhaps even make a real breakthrough. And as an added bonus - once you understand how real physics works, you can then branch out and look at all the fringey stuff, and see who might be onto something.
But if you try to skip the first step - learning about the conventional theories that work and why, then all you can do is grope around in the dark and hope to stumble upon something worthwhile. But even if that happens (which is about as likely as finding a million dollars on the street), you won't have the cognitive tools to know whether it's promising or not.
So please - before you decide to reject general relativity or quantum field theory...at least make an effort to understand it first. I know that it's not easy, but I can assure you from personal experience - it is worthwhile.
No those energies (Birkeland currents) are way too small.
The most obvious scenario proving mass-energy equivalence is with particle colliders: by smashing particles together at nearly the speed of light (gold nuclei, for example), physicists create a fountain of new particles from their kinetic energy every day at labs around the world.
But as far as I know, nobody's been able to imbue a marcoscopic body of matter with enough energy to detect the increase in rest mass directly.
There's also time dilation in special relativity. And like I mentioned, time travel is possible if the universe is rotating. But, sadly, our universe doesn't appear to be rotating.
I like the idea in the film The Fountain (and later, in the film Arrival), where your consciousness in the present can connect with your consciousness in the past. It would be pretty bitchin if I could project my mind into my own body at a younger age, and do a better job the second time around. But, sadly, I can see no way to take my memories with me, so it would be pointless.
spacecase0
earth human
Thomas,
just kind of curious if you have ever looked at a book called "the new science" by wilbert smith
resonantfractals.org/Wilbert Smith/The-New-Science-&-TensorBeam.pdf
I link to this version because of the added archives at the end, the website that hosts it is a bit fringe for even me (then again I did try to reproduce some of what he said with no results), so please don't judge the book by where I linked it from.
I read it once and thought about it,
read it again and took notes.
ran a few tests, and it seems like there is something new going on.
by the way, you have mentioned a few times about studying relativity before discounting it,
I have studied it in detail.
I don't discount it.
like many ideas, it gets at least most everything correct.
just like predictions of bright line spectrum, I know of 3 of them, one only gets hydrogen correct and none of the others, the other 2 get all the elements correct.
maybe it is just me, but the 2 that get all of them correct have vastly differing assumptions going on
and I have seen this sort of thing many times in physic, wrong assumptions if carried out with proper logic and math often get you the correct result, and I mean way more often that it should. I don't know why this happens, but it happens all the time. (you see this all the time when correcting papers in physics classes)
I know I have said (or asked) this over and over now,
but what do you think of other models of reality (even if flawed) that may predict building of hardware that does something unexpected when looking at other models of reality ?
not asking you to tear apart the wilbert smith book word at a time. (but if you need to do that, I get why)
but what do you think of it as an alternate model of reality ?
just kind of curious if you have ever looked at a book called "the new science" by wilbert smith
resonantfractals.org/Wilbert Smith/The-New-Science-&-TensorBeam.pdf
I link to this version because of the added archives at the end, the website that hosts it is a bit fringe for even me (then again I did try to reproduce some of what he said with no results), so please don't judge the book by where I linked it from.
I read it once and thought about it,
read it again and took notes.
ran a few tests, and it seems like there is something new going on.
by the way, you have mentioned a few times about studying relativity before discounting it,
I have studied it in detail.
I don't discount it.
like many ideas, it gets at least most everything correct.
just like predictions of bright line spectrum, I know of 3 of them, one only gets hydrogen correct and none of the others, the other 2 get all the elements correct.
maybe it is just me, but the 2 that get all of them correct have vastly differing assumptions going on
and I have seen this sort of thing many times in physic, wrong assumptions if carried out with proper logic and math often get you the correct result, and I mean way more often that it should. I don't know why this happens, but it happens all the time. (you see this all the time when correcting papers in physics classes)
I know I have said (or asked) this over and over now,
but what do you think of other models of reality (even if flawed) that may predict building of hardware that does something unexpected when looking at other models of reality ?
not asking you to tear apart the wilbert smith book word at a time. (but if you need to do that, I get why)
but what do you think of it as an alternate model of reality ?
spacecase0
earth human
seems to me that if you are to correctly model reality in order to get time travel,
you have to get past the space and time linking.
they are 2 clear ideas, and to mix them up seems to limit what you can visualize
so, in a world where you have linked space and time, how do you time travel ?
if you change your point of reference a bit and see time as its own thing, then you have some hope of changing it.
and I have a device that uses counter rotating electrostatic fields (and likely magnetic in there as well) that messes with gravity and time.
pretty sure that a gravity field is not a real thing. but a change in time fields that causes gravity as a side effect.
and that is why they can't find that gravity field
go look at star clusters that "should" collapse on themselves, if it is a change in time field, then they should be stable like we see them in the stars...
as far as the simulation issue,
seems to me that reality is an invention of consciousness
and it was so fantastic that many of us moved into "reality"
and that is why it follows the same rules of a simulation
you have to get past the space and time linking.
they are 2 clear ideas, and to mix them up seems to limit what you can visualize
so, in a world where you have linked space and time, how do you time travel ?
if you change your point of reference a bit and see time as its own thing, then you have some hope of changing it.
and I have a device that uses counter rotating electrostatic fields (and likely magnetic in there as well) that messes with gravity and time.
pretty sure that a gravity field is not a real thing. but a change in time fields that causes gravity as a side effect.
and that is why they can't find that gravity field
go look at star clusters that "should" collapse on themselves, if it is a change in time field, then they should be stable like we see them in the stars...
as far as the simulation issue,
seems to me that reality is an invention of consciousness
and it was so fantastic that many of us moved into "reality"
and that is why it follows the same rules of a simulation
Shadowprophet
Truthiness
People take Physics far too seriously in some circles. Fifteen years ago. I used to think Gravity was a force applied by atmospheric pressure, Were are here. All of us to learn, There are no arbitrary thoughts. No answers so wrong that they amass judgment or ridicule. That's not what a home, A place of learning is about. I want anyone and everyone to give their thoughts, Not so someone else can correct them, But because. Even if it's not textbook accurate. It may be a concept i've never thought of, And that is when the mind opens up to new possibilities brother
Shadowprophet
Truthiness
Consider for a moment. Causality. Higher dimensions. In which the universe began under different initial conditions. In an infinite space. with infinite probability. There are no wrong answers. Not truly.
In special relativity, faster-than-light travel will do the trick for time travel into the past. In general relativity there are "closed timelike curves" that could take you into the past, and wormholes might work as well, if one of the two ends is placed in a strong gravitational field (but you couldn't go back any further than the moment that you set up the system).
We experience space and time very differently, but they appear to simply be two perpendicular dimensions of the one reality - two sides of the same coin. In fact, you can use time dimensions for your spatial dimensions (light-seconds, light-years, etc) and thereby define reality purely in dimensions of time - a temporal plane, when modeling events on paper in two dimensions. Or you could go the other way and convert time units into spatial units to define a spatial plane. In relativity, trying to separate space and time is kinda like trying to separate the inside of a ball from the outside of a ball - it can't be done because they're just two aspects of a single spacetime manifold.
Impossible! Haha =)
Last edited:
CasualBystander
Celestial
Most light is emitted by shifting an electron to a lower orbital (or its ground state).
If light hits an atom that doesn't have a matching energy state available it just passes through, bounces off, or compton scatters. Compton scattering is the primary way it can "lose" energy. Most compton scattering is with free electrons.
There is a crosssection for compton and elastic scattering.
A lot of the interaction is determined by the energy of the photon. That is why the photoelectric effect only occurs for some energy ranges.
If light is absorbed by an atom an electron moves to a higher orbital.
Technically it does gain a bit of mass in the form of energy - but loses it when it reemits the photon. A free atom/molecule (like a gas) would have additional momentum as well.
If it is absorbed in a solid the lattice bonds would absorb the momentum.
Last edited:
I think you might have provided that link in the ARV thread, because I remember recently trying to read that book, and it was just too damned ponderous to get through. Maybe there’s something of value there – I’ll have to try again when I’m feeling exceptionally patient, and awash in leisure time. There aren’t many days when I feel prepared to completely forget everything that I’ve learned about physics and start from scratch with an entirely new model of reality with a gazillion new concepts inter-related in ways that may, or may not, be valid in a meaningful, self-consistent, and practical manner. My first impression was that it was incredibly woo stuff – but that’s not a final judgment: a proper evaluation of a book like that can take weeks or months, sometimes even years to fully comprehend, manipulate through applications to known physics, and determine whether it has any real merit.
I went through that process with Daniel Fry’s books, for example – and it took a decade to definitively determine that the concepts therein do in fact represent a significant advancement in theoretical physics. And I’m still not done unraveling it all, because the clues are very cleverly hidden in a variety of subtle ways that only become evident as one reaches very advanced levels of understanding in physics, which is an arduous and on-going process. I feel confident, however, that within his books is the key to understanding the underlying principle of gravitational fields – their true fundamental nature and the proper methodology for synthesizing them (both polarities) with attainable magnitudes of energy.
The first part of this section contradicts the second part: relativity doesn’t predict the absorption/emission spectra of atoms. So I don’t know how you’re deriving spectra predictions from relativity. Please explain your methodology explicitly so I can understand what you’re talking about.
Do you teach physics? If so, at what level? None of the physics PhD’s I know take exception to SR and GR as you do; and I’d like to understand that disparity better. Most of the theoretical physicists I study are looking at extensions of relativity, rather than chucking it altogether and starting over. Although once in great while, a refreshing and totally alien model of reality appears in the physics literature, like this one:
“Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time,” Julian Barbour, Tim Koslowski, and Flavio Mercati, Physical Review Letters, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0917.pdf
Perhaps my advocacy for relativity and quantum field theory gives the wrong impression. Given that these two models have been irreconcilable for roughly a century, I think it’s safe to assume that the next major advancement in theoretical physics will radically transform our understanding of physical reality, similar to the manner in which relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics, and throw open the doors to new technologies well beyond our present capabilities. But note that even in that case, the applicability of Newtonian mechanics in the weak field limit is preserved – it’s sufficiently accurate for modeling the flight trajectories of the Voyager and Pioneer probes, for example.
But the tiny deviations from Newtonian mechanics that were predicted by relativity under conditions proximal to the Earth, required a radical transformation of our fundamental understanding of physical reality.
I expect a similar transformation when we achieve the first unified field theory. But note that this new understanding will require a level of sophistication equal to, or greater than, the tensor calculus of general relativity – because we now know that all of those effects are real, and cannot be described by any simpler mathematical edifice. Likewise, the unified field theory will require a minimum level of sophistication equal to or greater than the Schrödinger wave equation and associated Hamiltonians and so forth of quantum field theory.
That’s why I dismiss all alternative models which fail to reach those levels of mathematical precision and sophistication - we know that these are minimum requirements for describing the physical observations that we’ve made to date.
But we can be certain that both of these physics models are only special cases of a larger encompassing theory that remains undiscovered, so the game is on. The universe originated from a single object that defies our current understanding, where gravitational and quantum fields were unified (and remain fundamentally unified even today) in a way that eludes our present comprehension. We will discover that underlying unifying physical theory, because it exists – the proof is literally all around us.
Making key steps toward that unified field theory is the primary focus of my theoretical physics studies.
So don’t misunderstand me – I’m not a conventional academic thinker. I advocate passionately for general relativity and the established physical theories only because of their astounding and thoroughly verified observational predictions and elegant theoretical frameworks. But I know they’re not the end of the story.
Shadowprophet
Truthiness
I have a theory that in an indirect way. Extreme temperatures could be used to focus and tune space-time. I believe it's possible that the Bose-Einstein condensate under the right conditions. Bose–Einstein condensate - Wikipedia could trigger a black hole, Within a certain critical density. By this reasoning, since extreme cold can affect density, at the very least it can indirectly affect Time. at least relative to the mass affected by the condensate. The Exotic material we need to properly bend space-time Would have to be a metamaterial that creates condensate when it's accelerated. Or at the very least, A metamaterial that can hold the condensed state for a longer period of time.
Last edited:
Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that the photonic metamaterial now undergoing analysis by doctors Puthoff and Davis in Austin, does in fact lose a measurable magnitude of mass under activation with THz radiation. In that case, we're going to learn about a heretofore unknown coupling mechanism between quantum field theory and gravitation. A rigorous theoretical analysis of such findings should provide the key to a unified field theory, and throw open the door to a gravitational field technology.
Naturally, I'm extremely excited to hear about their findings - because once we have a quantified and qualified experimental result to examine in detail, we won't have to guess about the nature of this pivotal coupling mechanism; we'll be able to reproduce and manipulate it as we desire via the theoretical framework that will emerge.
Shadowprophet
Truthiness
As Am I!!! I hadn't heard about it until you mentioned it, I'm looking it up now, Thanks for the study material
Gambeir
Celestial
You're doing a good job Thomas. It's just that maybe you don't think you are, but you are. You don't need to worry about why others do, or do not do, or if they adopt the ideas you believe are correct. I am myself a bit of a Nazi and am all too inclined to insist I know best.
I'm replying here because this say's a great deal about the way you interpret information. Just let me assure you that despite whatever else you may think, you have produced valuable and useful information, and this is what Universe wants you to be doing. I'm quite sure of that.
You're a physicist and artist Thomas, not a detective, leave the reasoning of insanity to me. Brilliance and craziness are almost one and the same. Indeed, madness could be called the mother of brilliance.
You are on a path handing out conventional proven knowledge. I am on a path deciphering crazy insanity. I don't expect you to agree with insanity and craziness too much.
Just keep doing what you're doing and Universe will reward you. That's how it works. You're only allowed to do what you're doing if Universe see's a profit in it. Everything happens for a reason and in it's time.