Heavy Science. Time Travel.

Gambeir

Celestial
Thomas already said it IS inaccurate, or missing parts... that’s his frustration... and the fact that he has tried, gives credit to his validation that GR is strong Kung fu... it even kicks his butt too.., haha...
okay, enough...
A reading I will go, a reading I will go... hi ho the merry oh a reading I will go!

Kchoo, it depends on what answers you're looking for.

Un huh, well it depends on what precisely is meant by such a claim. Certainly the idea that dark matter is what explains the conformity of galactic rotation is gravely mistaken and probably an outright fabrication. If on the other hand you're seeking to find what possible effects FTL might have than that would probably be fruitful.

Just remember Kchoo, this is a lot like bible study, it's a program which evidently also produces similar believers.
 
Come on though, Does it even need to unify? Isn't the idea that it needs to unify just some sort of caveat to cater to OCD? It doesn't need to unify. Relativity works great, Quantum mechanics is doing fine on its own. I look at it in this way. Those people who absolutely need Relativity and QFT to unify are really just seeking it for reasons I could only assume are Vanity maybe. They don't need to work together. They are different theories for different models of the cosmos, Models that don't really need to match up.
I'm looking at a hybrid approach right now, but I know that it's not optimal to go about it this way, even if it works out.

Look at it this way: we're trying to manipulate gravitation, which is described by general relativity. But all physical technology is based on quantum field theory (QFT). QFT is the language of engineering. These two theories haven't been unified, so we're trying to engineer general relativistic physics, without having an explicit engineering language to do that. So we're groping in the dark - we can't optimize any general relativistic effect, without a quantum field theory model to do so. So it's like trying to describe orbital mechanics to high precision, without using math. It might be possible to kinda get that worked out, but holy crap is it an awkward process.

The universe operates via a single unified physics. We can't speak that language yet because we don't have a unified equation to work with. That makes our engineering job extremely difficult. It may be possible to work it out, or it may not.

If we had that one equation that unifies it all., we wouldn't have to rely on educated guesses, rough approximations, and wishful thinking: we'd know how to get from A to Z.

Certainly the idea that dark matter is what explains the conformity of galactic rotation is gravely mistaken and probably an outright fabrication.
A "fabrication" that just happens to explain the observed effects to high precision...hmmm. That's quite a trick. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to model an effect like this accurately, using the known laws of physics, and end up with the right results?

It's virtually impossible. That's why astrophysicists find the dark matter model so convincing: it actually works. Unlike the raft of bogus online alternative physics theories that don't actually work.

Just remember Kchoo, this is a lot like bible study, it's a program which evidently also produces similar believers.
Like I said before, if you know a better answer, enlighten us. Otherwise, stop slinging mud at the people who have devoted their lives to figuring it out. Every scientist on the planet is eager to find the correct answer to these riddles, and when the correct answer is found and proven, the scientific community will rally around it because scientists value the truth above all, and generally abhor the very concept of belief. Because belief is ignorance masquerading as knowledge, and few people understand that better than an earnest scientist.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
I'm looking at a hybrid approach right now, but I know that it's not optimal to go about it this way, even if it works out.

Look at it this way: we're trying to manipulate gravitation, which is described by general relativity. But all physical technology is based on quantum field theory (QFT). QFT is the language of engineering. These two theories haven't been unified, so we're trying to engineer general relativistic physics, without having an explicit engineering language to do that. So we're groping in the dark - we can't optimize any general relativistic effect, without a quantum field theory model to do so. So it's like trying to describe orbital mechanics to high precision, without using math. It might be possible to kinda get that worked out, but holy crap is it an awkward process.

The universe operates via a single unified physics. We can't speak that language yet because we don't have a unified equation to work with. That makes our engineering job extremely difficult. It may be possible to work it out, or it may not.

If we had that one equation that unifies it all., we wouldn't have to rely on educated guesses, rough approximations, and wishful thinking: we'd know how to get from A to Z.
No, it's fine. I find it admirable, I myself would love to see them unify. I was only pointing out. that it's not completely necessary is all,
 
I was only pointing out. that it's not completely necessary is all,
You don't know that, though. To do this, we need to amplify the effects of available energy levels, by about 40 orders of magnitude. That's the largest amplification factor that humanity has ever aspired to achieve.

Trying to do that without a cogent and complete mathematical engineering equation is probably a pipe dream. Nobody's been able to do it yet, anyway. And it may simply be impossible.

So unification isn't just an ideal scenario - it's probably the key that we need to proceed into this realm of applied physics.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
You don't know that, though. To do this, we need to amplify the effects of available energy levels, by about 40 orders of magnitude. That's the largest amplification factor that humanity has ever aspired to achieve.

Trying to do that without a cogent and complete mathematical theory is probably a pipe dream. Nobody's been able to do it yet, anyway. And it may simply be impossible.

So unification isn't just an ideal scenario - it's probably the key that we need to proceed into this realm of applied physics.
Well Of course I know it's not necessary. I know what it would do for technology. and medical development. But I know it's not necessary because here we are and relativity hasn't fallen. Quantum Mechanics hasn't faded away into the dark. I can't help but side with Freemon Dyson on this Argument, He was a well-known pacifist in this relativity versus quantum unification theory. He believed they may never unify. Nor that they really needed too. For every point of view. There is a powerful historical figure who thought the same way. I ask you as Dyson would, Why can't Relativity be accurate. Why can't Quantum field theory also be accurate Because ultimately, They are very different models that attempt to explain very different things. At the same time, I don't feel a grand unification theory is really holding us back as far as you credit it. Not at all, I can't see a pharmaceutical toxicologist saying. I think I've found a way to better treat cancer. But oh wait. It doesn't fit grand unification theory.
 
Last edited:
Well Of course I know it's not necessary. I know what it would do for technology. and medical development. But I know it's not necessary because here we are and relativity hasn't fallen. Quantum Mechanics hasn't faded away into the dark. I can't help but side with Freemon Dyson on this Argument, He was a well-known pacifist in this relativity versus quantum unification theory. He believed they may never unify. Nor that they really needed too. For every point of view. There is a powerful historical figure who thought the same way. I ask you as Dyson would, Why can't Relativity be accurate. Why can't Quantum field theory also be accurate Because ultimately, They are very different models that attempt to explain very different things.
You're not understanding. General relativity isn't expressed in an engineering language. The Einstein field equation only defines the bulk parameters required to produce a given spacetime distortion. It says nothing about how to do it.

If you try to take those bulk parameters as your energy requirements, you end up with absurd magnitudes and densities of energy - beyond the density of neutron star matter (neutronium). And one teaspoon of neutronium would fall through the Earth as if the Earth were a tenuous gas. It would keep falling through the planet until the whole planet was like Swiss cheese.

So there has to be a way to achieve the gravitational effects that are required, with vastly smaller energy densities. But we have no understanding about how that can be done. It requires an engineering approach to gravitation at the quantum level, evidently. And that's exactly what we don't have yet - a quantum field theory of gravity.

Do you see the problem now?

Now if we could drop the nonsense about knowing everything there is to know maybe we could actually find our way back to time travel and the potential reality that it might already exist.

https://stealthskater.com/Documents/PX_Proof_1.pdf

https://stealthskater.com/Documents/TimeTwister_1.pdf
There's no credible evidence that the Philadelphia experiment was a real thing, and in fact the USS Eldridge was nowhere near Philadelphia at the alleged time of that experiment.

And what Ronald Mallett is trying to do is like trying to get to the Moon with a pogo stick - he's about 60 orders of magnitude short on the requisite energy densities, by using laser light to try to warp spacetime.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
You don't know that, though. To do this, we need to amplify the effects of available energy levels, by about 40 orders of magnitude. That's the largest amplification factor that humanity has ever aspired to achieve.

Trying to do that without a cogent and complete mathematical engineering equation is probably a pipe dream. Nobody's been able to do it yet, anyway. And it may simply be impossible.

So unification isn't just an ideal scenario - it's probably the key that we need to proceed into this realm of applied physics.
Keep in mind Thomas, The Deeper we swim into the theoretical The more we reveal bias, We all have Bias. But From the ground up. They still don't call it the Fact of relativity. It's all bias opinion backing theories on a true table of functioning physics.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
You're not understanding. General relativity isn't expressed in an engineering language. The Einstein field equation only defines the bulk parameters required to produce a given spacetime distortion. It says nothing about how to do it.

If you try to take those bulk parameters as your energy requirements, you end up with absurd magnitudes and densities of energy - beyond the density of neutron star matter (neutronium). And one teaspoon of neutronium would fall through the Earth as if the Earth were a tenuous gas. It would keep falling through the planet until the whole planet was like Swiss cheese.

So there has to be a way to achieve the gravitational effects that are required, with vastly smaller energy densities. But we have no understanding about how that can be done. It requires an engineering approach to gravitation at the quantum level, evidently. And that's exactly what we don't have yet - a quantum field theory of gravity.

Do you see the problem now?
Nuclear Physics Thomas, E=Mc2 Now. Energy is Equal to mass. the Conditions in nuclear fission and fusion are described artistically beautiful here. I must admit. Nuclear physics are like a beautiful art. The energy conversion from mass and mass to energy. Proves Relativity and critical mass teach much about it.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
You're not understanding. General relativity isn't expressed in an engineering language. The Einstein field equation only defines the bulk parameters required to produce a given spacetime distortion. It says nothing about how to do it.

If you try to take those bulk parameters as your energy requirements, you end up with absurd magnitudes and densities of energy - beyond the density of neutron star matter (neutronium). And one teaspoon of neutronium would fall through the Earth as if the Earth were a tenuous gas. It would keep falling through the planet until the whole planet was like Swiss cheese.

So there has to be a way to achieve the gravitational effects that are required, with vastly smaller energy densities. But we have no understanding about how that can be done. It requires an engineering approach to gravitation at the quantum level, evidently. And that's exactly what we don't have yet - a quantum field theory of gravity.

Do you see the problem now?

That's a very simple problem in my thinking, But I'm going off my own track here. I see gravity as a shared quantum force, We don't share gravity with just these three dimensions. 4 if you count spacetime. it is shared among dimensions. Gravity in my thinking is Quantum.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
We know that Gravity affects spacetime, So we must submit that it's 4th dimensional, But, What of a 5th dimension? if there is a fifth and sixth dimension, would Gravity not be a shared force there to some extent as well?
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
No, I see what you are saying. It's understanding that Gravity is quantum and figuring out why and how, Yeah. I'm not even gonna pretend I have the answer to that. I don't.
 
Keep in mind Thomas, The Deeper we swim into the theoretical The more we reveal bias, We all have Bias. But From the ground up. They still don't call it the Fact of relativity. It's all bias opinion backing theories on a true table of functioning physics.
No, we've been over this. Science always calls its models "theories," never "facts." They still call evolution a theory, for example. Because the word "fact" is reserved for direct experimental data, not explanations of that data.

And yes we assume that gravity has a quantum explanation. But we don't have that explanation. Hence, the problem.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
No, we've been over this. Science always calls its models "theories," never "facts." They still call evolution a theory, for example. Because the word "fact" is reserved for direct experimental data, not explanations of that data.

And yes we assume that gravity has a quantum explanation. But we don't have that explanation. Hence, the problem.
When you find out let me know. That's exactly the kind of thing I'd want to know bro.
 

Gambeir

Celestial
Nobody cares about theoretical's that deny observed physical reality. That's not useful. Just like denying historical accounts as fantasy are also unhelpful. So maybe being un~helpful is a concept that needs to be recognized.

Christ Sakes, we got people who've vanished in broad daylight right in front of other people. We have people whose planes have completely disappeared, evidently forever, and which even the most titanic efforts cannot locate, and which seriously challenges belief given that even in the early 1960's we managed to track down and locate aircraft lost at sea. So we have a lot of problems with what we think we know and what nature evidently has to still teach us. I don't need to hear a pack of lies claiming to know everything when it's manifestly not the case at all.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
No, we've been over this. Science always calls its models "theories," never "facts." They still call evolution a theory, for example. Because the word "fact" is reserved for direct experimental data, not explanations of that data.

And yes we assume that gravity has a quantum explanation. But we don't have that explanation. Hence, the problem.
I'm just going to throw this at you at random, as a thought. Is it possible that much like dark energy? Gravity has a positive pressure or force applied to it, By some kind of like kinetic pressure/ force contained within space-time, Spacetime is stretchy, Maybe gravitational force has built up and it's pushing back?
 
I'm just going to throw this at you at random, as a thought. Is it possible that much like dark energy? Gravity has a positive pressure or force applied to it, By some kind of like kinetic pressure/ force contained within space-time,
The warping of spacetime is associated with a positive energy, just like a steel rod stores positive energy when it's bent.

We're not sure about the nature of dark energy yet, but right now it seems to be a positive energy field associated with all spacetime uniformly, which is remarkably unhelpful. I'm hoping that the Dark Energy Survey will find anisotropies, and change the game. Because if it's a little bit stronger n some places, and a little bit weaker in others, that would mean that there's a mechanism at work, and that we can interact with it, perhaps manipulate it in the lab, and perhaps even exploit it technologically.
 
Last edited:

spacecase0

earth human
If you want to start a thread about alternatives to science,
I know I should be done with this thread.
and I want to be
but how is questioning reality,
then testing it not the scientific method ?
seems as if you have lost your fundamentals.
maybe go read the idea of the scientific method and get back to us

--------------------

also, the idea that math is not reality has been presented to you many times in this thread
you never address this when it threatens your math (not to be confused with logic, a larger topic that contains math)

-----------------------

also the comment of "put up or shut up"
you only accept what you have been taught. (that is called schooling, learning is something else entirely)
you have been presented with all kinds of ideas here.
you only accept the ones that suit you.
now I get that.
now why has there not been any evidence as to how inertia can be messed with,
from your point of view, it is because all of it was removed from your schooling
from other points of view, how about the electrostatic charge of a pendulum inside a faraday cage of the same potential ?
that is just one of many
when you hide from anomalies you don't figure things out.
when you go look at them, you find reality.
you started early in this thread with seemingly being annoyed with people that have never studied relativity (and potentially quantum physics, but I forget if you took issue with that)
you seem to have abandon that as of late
I studied it in great detail.
reading this thread it is clear you pick and choose what you reply to,
you pose ideas like someone that is skilled in rhetoric
a winning thing if running for public office, but clearly not someone seeking the truth.
go pick the hard points, reply to them.
like the idea that any simple math is unlikely to predict reality, or more critically so, if you have even one anomaly, you are sure your math is wrong.
and past all that,
I give you an anomaly free version of physics, and you reply with the idea that it could take years to figure it out.
you might be correct,
but you gave no hint that you even read it once (takes a few hours)
much less taking notes and really trying to figure it out (takes a few days)

in some way I do admire your point of view,
you have everything figured out, must be a very comfortable place to be.
makes sense that you would defend that point of view so much.

you asked about hardware a while back
go look at that pendulum at high voltage first,
assuming you don't debunk it (for anyone that is not paying attention, debunking is an emotional attack on logic. disproof is quite another thing) I have more hardware to share if you are actually interested (but schooling dictates that you pretend to care long enough to figure out how to ignore it, if you were actually learning and testing the ideas, seems you would have said other things)
you should embrace the scientific method and stop defending your math so much.
(I fully expect you to pick apart the ideas presented here into sentences, possibly even words, after all, if you disprove a word here, the entire thing must be wrong.)
 

spacecase0

earth human
What a joke. I question our current theories every day of my life. Which is how I know where they succeed, and where they're incomplete. You and Gambeir refuse to read any actual physics papers that compare the experimental data behind our current physical theories, against their predictions, so you guys don't actually understand what you're talking about.

You have to study academic physics before you can argue against it, and pose reasonable arguments.
I have read every one of the things you posted, things you hinted at, and many more than that
(you apparently made a wrong assumption there)

I have seen clocks (digital and hardware versions) tick off time very wrong when exposed to devices that were not powered by much power at all)
I have studied all what you say in detail. yet you accuse me of not doing so...
don't you see that you are the one that is open to new ideas ?
this entire thread is a repeat of what I went through at school
they denied what could be clearly shown to them
some even ran away (like as in physically run away and never come back)
at first was told that what I said could not be true,
when challenged further, was told that what I built should have never been built,
not that my interpretation was wrong of what was going on, just that I should have never built it...
and I pressed to topic, they were quite clear to the end, it should have never been built.
in the end it was proven that I was not a university, and had no standing to challenge the mathematical reality of schooled physics.
they had me there, I am not a university.
 

Gambeir

Celestial
I have read every one of the things you posted, things you hinted at, and many more than that
(you apparently made a wrong assumption there)

I have seen clocks (digital and hardware versions) tick off time very wrong when exposed to devices that were not powered by much power at all)
I have studied all what you say in detail. yet you accuse me of not doing so...
don't you see that you are the one that is open to new ideas ?
this entire thread is a repeat of what I went through at school
they denied what could be clearly shown to them
some even ran away (like as in physically run away and never come back)
at first was told that what I said could not be true,
when challenged further, was told that what I built should have never been built,
not that my interpretation was wrong of what was going on, just that I should have never built it...
and I pressed to topic, they were quite clear to the end, it should have never been built.
in the end it was proven that I was not a university, and had no standing to challenge the mathematical reality of schooled physics.
they had me there, I am not a university.

Just click on the Name space and then a box will open and you can check ignore.
This is like trying to talk to a brick wall and just as helpful
 
Top