View Full Version : What is TIME exactly?

Ian Moone

08-16-2011, 04:18 PM

Most of us know about measuring time & various types of clocks, but can anyone explain to me exactly what TIME itself is?

I believe I have a pretty good idea what TIME itself is exactly and will elaborate in due course, on my theory of what TIME is - but first I REALLY would appreciate hearing from others, what they think TIME is.

Thank you in advance.

EireEngineer

08-16-2011, 07:08 PM

Time is simply the fourth dimension of space time. Just as objects move through the three spatial dimensions, they too move through time. Just like the spatial dimensions though, there are rules which govern this movement, namely that you can only "travel" in one direction in time. But I would love to hear your theories on the subject.

Ian Moone

08-16-2011, 09:41 PM

Thank you for taking the time and effort to make your reply Eire Engineer!

I think we are likely in agreement that Time is the 4th dimension required to explain our reality state!

To first order, time seems to have the same energy density as mass does.

So time is actually highly compressed energy.

It turnes out that all 3-space energy comes from the time domain anyway, being time converted into 3-space energy. And it also returns from 3-space back to the time domain, in an ongoing "circulation" in 4-space.

Time, as such, in a continuum of such magnitude is equally relative!

'Time' Is NOT an absolute dimension in reality.

The ONLY absolute is energy.

Time is a ratio of changes in energy density.

Time on an atom passes much faster than time at the earth level does.Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time (electron shell), or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity?.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole!.

This changes all observed measurements of time and distance. The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

Alpha = e^2/hc

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."

The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."

The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.

Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumvirate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.

It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.

If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would have found that all the forces of nature; the nuclear, electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces, were all simply variations of the same force!.

I propose that Time is a combined Angular Torque Momentum & Gravity Spin Moment Kinetic Energy!.

To my mind the fundamental manifestation of time is change.

I am of the understanding that "time" is an angular torque momentum spin moment of kinetic energy, occasioned by both the earths spin moment about its own axis, combined with its observed heliocentric orbit of the sun while the sun itself orbits the center of the milky way galaxy once every approximately 26,000 years.

As such the potential angular torque momentum spin moment kinetic energy of the time domain is calculable, with all the variables known;-

A ) Mass of the earth

B ) Velocity of the earth thru space in its annual orbit of the sun

C ) Spin rate of the earth about it's own axis

D ) velocity of the sun thru space in its great year orbit of the Milky way universe

In effect we need to calculate the earths angular momentum in a corkscrew spiral thru space taking a year each time to orbit the sun once as we progress along thru the Milky way for ~26,000 years or a great year.

In just this same manner imagine the earths orbit about the sun as if it were a common spiral wound wire spring.

Now imagine that it is say 10 times longer.

Then imagine that it is looped around to form a circle like a snake swallowing its own tail.

Now stretch the coils open to make them not touching each other.

Now place a jewelery bead drilled thru its center onto the stretched coil spring!

Now spin that jewelery bead about its own axis just as the earth spins about its own axis.

Now slide the still spinning bead along the stretched out circular looped coil, taking;-

1. One revolution about it's own axis every 24 hours,

and

2. One full orbit about the center line of the coil which would represent the suns orbit about the milky way universe, every 356 & 1/4 days.

3. Currently one precession cycle is estimated to be about 25,765 years so the circular length of the looped coil spring on which the bead both spins and slides at the same time is, (365.25 days x 25,765 years) long or 9,410,666.25 earth spins about its own axis (days) before it repeats the cycle. (813,081,564,000 seconds)

4. Earths Mass = 5.9722 × 1024 kg's

5. Earths Velocity = 29.8 km/sec.

Source Wikipedia Quote: The rotational energy or angular kinetic energy is the kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) due to the rotation of an object and is part of its total kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Rotation_in_systems). Looking at rotational energy separately around an object's axis of rotation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_rotation), one gets the following dependence on the object's moment of inertia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia):

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Glenice/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image003.gifwhere

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Glenice/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image004.gif is the angular speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_speed)file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Glenice/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image005.gif is the moment of inertia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia) around the axis of rotation.file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Glenice/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image006.gif is the kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy). The mechanical work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work) required for / applied during rotation is the torque times the rotation angle. The instantaneous power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29) of an angularly accelerating body is the torque times the angular frequency. For free-floating (unattached) objects, the axis of rotation is commonly around its center of mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass).

Note the close relationship between the results for linear (or translational) and rotational motion; the formula for the

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Glenice/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image007.gifIn the rotating system, the moment of inertia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia), I, takes the role of the mass, m, and the angular velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity), ω, takes the role of the linear velocity, v. The rotational energy of a rolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel) cylinder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_%28geometry%29) varies from one half of the translational energy (if it is massive) to the same as the translational energy (if it is hollow).

As an example, let us calculate the rotational kinetic energy of the Earth. As the Earth has a period of about 23.93 hours, it has an angular velocity of 7.29×10−5 rad/s. The Earth has a moment of inertia, I = 8.04×1037 kg·m2.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy#cite_note-0) Therefore, it has a rotational kinetic energy of 2.138×1029 J.

Part of it can be tapped using tidal power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power). This creates additional friction of the two global tidal waves, infinitesimally slowing down Earth's angular velocity ω. Due to conservation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_momentum) of angular momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum) this process transfers angular momentum to the Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon)'s orbital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit) motion, increasing its distance from Earth and its orbital period (see tidal locking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking) for a more detailed explanation of this process).

Source Wikipedia

5.37×1041 J the theoretical total mass-energy of the Earth [FONT="]I suggested that just one second of the earths total kinetic energy equals ~9 x 10 ^ 16 joules of energy / second.

I believe the earths total potential energy is closer to ~ 6.6045034566790398902710823240361 x 10^28 joules per second.

The kinetic value ignores the spin moment inertial value, while the total potential energy includes it.

If however we were to harvest (convert) the Kinetic energy into another form then theoretically it is perhaps possible to de - orbit the earth out of its geostationary orbital distance from the sun, and have it spiral into the sun!

While harvesting (converting from one form of energy to another) some of it's spin moment (gravitational force) which we already currently already do if you consider for example the use of hydro power generation (gravity) - the only effect should be the lengthening of the duration of a day as the earths spin rate about its own axis decelerates in response.

So

It all comes back to what do we consider time to be?

To me at least, at this point in "time" I am of the opinion that clocks measure the rate of spin of the earth about its own axis (broken down into hours minutes seconds etc) and that THIS is in effect a measure of the force of gravity NOT TIME.

So for me at least clocks do not measure time - they measure the force of gravity or the rate of spin of the earth about its own axis,

Thus

Time to me at least is measured by calendars - which keep track of the earths position in space in our annual orbit of the sun as we traverse the orbital path of the sun over the course of one great year!

So time is an angular torque momentum spin moment kinetic energy force!.

Least that's what I reckon at this point in time!.

Cheers![/COLOR]

EireEngineer

08-17-2011, 12:17 PM

I kind of figured that a wall of text full of misapplied scientific terms was on the way. Thanks

Ian Moone

08-18-2011, 12:35 PM

I'm sorry that you seem disappointed Erie Engineer?

It seems that you were looking for a different response perhaps?

If there's anything that your aware of about Time, that you wish to impart I am all ears, because like everyone - I'm here on this earth and in this lifetime to learn!

I consider every man my teacher in that everyone has something to impart that might be worth learning.

I thought that the idea or suggestion that Time is a form of energy, and that both quantifying it and describing it might be of interest to this specific part of the forum - which was why I joined and started the thread.

If you disagree that Time is just another form of energy occasioned by the earths gravitational spin moment about its own axis and its observed heliocentric orbit about the sun during the suns orbit of the milky way galaxy over the course of a great year - then please share - because you will find in me a most patient and willing listener & student.

Cheers & beers

EireEngineer

08-19-2011, 06:46 AM

It just seems like a bit of a stretch. If what you say were true, then there would be no causality for anything outside of the orbit of the earth, which is obviously not the case.

Ian Moone

08-19-2011, 01:14 PM

I am sorry that I didn't quite follow your reasoning there - could you please elaborate on what you mean by "no causality for anything outside of the orbit of the earth, which is obviously not the case".

I guess I always explain to myself, what I think maybe you mean, to myself by rationalizing that we here on earth experience "time" as the components of energy associated with our planetary mass orbiting the sun as it spins about it's own axis as I described and that - any other life form or inanimate object would experience say "mars time" as the planetary energy of that particular planet etc.

Obviously - because we have ways of measuring the passage of time (or our planets journey thru the universe), that we could then use those same units (based on our rate of spin about our own axis) to measure passage of time on say Mars again - in terms that we are familiar with, i.e earth time or Earth based quanta of energy...BUT couldn't we equally use say a Mars day etc to measure passage of time on Mars based upon its spin rate about its own axis and its own passage thru the universe?

Each would be equally valid units of measurement would they not and each could be converted to the other form with a simple ratio conversion?

I seem to recall that A Einstein had a small problem with his special theory of relativity - referred to as the "twin paradox".

Twin paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox)

In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment) in special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity), in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to a naive application of time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation), each should paradoxically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox) find the other to have aged more slowly. In fact, the result is not a paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox) in the true sense, since it can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been verified experimentally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment) using measurements of precise clocks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock) flown in airplanes[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-0) and satellites.

Starting with Paul Langevin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Langevin) in 1911, there have been numerous explanations of this paradox, many based upon there being no contradiction because there is no symmetry—only one twin has undergone acceleration and deceleration, thus differentiating the two cases. One version of the asymmetry argument made by Max von Laue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue) in 1913 is that the traveling twin uses two inertial frames (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference): one on the way up and the other on the way down. So switching frames is the cause of the difference, not acceleration per se.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-1)

Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration. Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein), Born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Born) and Møller invoked gravitational time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation) to explain the aging based upon the effects of acceleration.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#cite_note-Jammer-2) Both gravitational time dilation and special relativity can be used to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment) on time dilation using precise measurements of clocks flown in airplanes.

So essentially what is being spoken of here is just what I suggested could be the explanation that there are different frames of reference - one mars time and another earth time.

At the end of the day both are just different quanta of energy based on each planets mass and velocity thru space, and inertial spin moment - which of course are different for the two planets.

Another possibility exists however.

That is that there is a problem with Einsteins special theory of relativity

e =mc^2

I would contend at this point that is exactly the case.

If c is indeed the universal constant, the limit velocity of light in a vacuum (I would contend that it is ONLY the OBSERVABLE limit velocity of light in a vacuum) and is equal roughly to 186,000 mils per second or 3 x 10^8 meters per second then we have a very simple but long overlooked problem with the equation.

for e = mc^2 to be correct - then the value for C mathematically can be both

A ) +ve 3 x 10^8 meters per second

and

B ) -ve 3 x 10 ^8 meters per second

Because as any year 9 math student will tell you - there are two solutions to the square root and one id positive and the other is the negative root!

When squared as happens with e = mc^2 both values will yeild a positive outcome.

This is akin to saying that the value of the speed of light C can be 3 x 10^ 8 meters East as well as 3 x 10^8 meters per second West at the same time!

That is clearly paradoxical!

(Just as the twin paradox is paradoxical)

Usually a paradoxical outcome is the result of starting put with a false premise.

A simple example should demonstrate this point!

Premise 1 = All Dogs have 4 legs

Premise 2 = All 4 legged animals are cats

Therefore

All dogs are cats

or

All cats are dogs

Premise 2 is obviously False and accounts for the paradoxical outcome!

In Einstein's case the false premise he started out with - was ignoring the negatove root solution to his special theory of relativity equation, e =mc ^2, which is a mathematical and scientific "no no" of huge proportions.

It is therefore understandable that his outcome was paradoxical! The aforementioned twin paradox quoted above and the negative root solution!

Anyway before I head off at at tangent - I just wanted to show that I think there are many different versions of time within the universe and that each depends on where you are in space and in what system of measurement units you wish to measure it.

I guess I should add this

Where I posted that e=mc^2 isn't correct - there is just ONE possibility - that makes it true!

I believe the error to be that OBSERVABLE Light speed limit velocity 3 x 10^8 meters per second and that in light speed terms that is just mach 1 equivalent to sound barrier, and that like sound - light also can jump the limit observable velocity to warp 2 or 3 etc just as suggested in good ol star trek movies - "warp speed 9 please Mr Zulu, Spock you have the con!" :D

But seriously,

IF the speed of light were in fact "infinite" - then e = mc^2 then works - because infinity squared is still infinity!

We know that for near earth calculations e = mc^2 seems to give the correct answer in most instances!

My suggestion is that the value for the speed of light should be infinite!

Something worth considering in relation to this speed of light question is this.

Again as quoted above

Time on an atom passes much faster than time at the earth level does.Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time (electron shell), or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity?.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole!.

This changes all observed measurements of time and distance. The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

I have heard / read it suggested that when Einstein adopted Mitchellson Morleys lineal and rotational analogue light speed experimental results value for the speed of light in his 21 equation proof for his special relativity theorem - that instead of adopting the universal constant c speed of light, that if he had adopted his own constant Alpha from his nobel prize winning photoelectric effects paper, and that had he done so - he would have found the much sought after Grand Unification Theorem that he searched in vain for until his end.

Interestingly when you look at that above statement about the passage of time at the atomic level...and the value for alpha and the mas of the lectron compared to the proton and neutron and the fact that it us always 1/137th of the sped of light - the OTHER interesting fact is that the electron "behaves as a shell" as though it were everywhere about the nucleus of the atom at the same time or has "infinite" speed!

I did deliberate on this at some length, and something else strange occurred to me.

Way back at the beginning of the Bible in genesis we are told that our creator God is the Alpha and the Omega (The Beginning and the End)

As you know from the above;

the value of Alpha is 1/137

&

The value of Omega is infinity!

Do we not have in this statement the make up of our reality state in the fundamental building block relationship of mass and the actual speed of light (infinity)?

Sorry for getting ahead of the discussion.

Please do elaborate on your statement;-

"no causality for anything outside of the orbit of the earth, which is obviously not the case".

As stated I am only too willing to learn and correct any misunderstanding that my physics understanding might be flawed in some areas.

Cheers!

EireEngineer

08-20-2011, 06:51 AM

Your posts are such a mish mash of unrelated scientific terms that its impossible to see what you are trying to say. Try this: start with one concept and we will go from there. It looked like you were trying to say that time only has a reference when in the vicinity of a rotating body. That is clearly not the case.

Ian Moone

08-20-2011, 09:52 AM

Please do elaborate on your statement;-

Quote:

"no causality for anything outside of the orbit of the earth, which is obviously not the case".

It looked like you were trying to say that time only has a reference when in the vicinity of a rotating body. That is clearly not the case.

Clearly you skipped or missed the bit about the twin paradox (A Einstein's "twin paradox", it was in the wiki-pedia quote)...

That referred to time as it passes in a space ship / rocket!

Also I spoke of time in the nucleus of an atom...

To get at where your headed we really need to go back to proving or disproving the existence of the either of space, if we wish to understand "time" throughout the universe.

I would suggest that the either of space, while it acts as a incompressible liquid in its ability to propagate waves across inertial space - yet it is also a seething mass of varying energy density's, and that it is our passage thru this either whether we are on a planet orbiting a sun or in a spacer ship or just a piece of space junk drifting aimlessly in space thru that ether, that is our frame of reference for measuring the energy involved which we perceive as the passage of time.

Perhaps it would be instructive if you were to outline your theory of what exactly time is?

I wish to move beyond this explanation to my discovery of the relationship between mass and Time in energy terms.

Without grasping the basics thus far It seems as tho i might be effectively talking to myself - no disrespect intended.

Would it help you if I started with posts of Mitchellson Morley's and later Sagnacs linear and then rotational analogue light speed experiments - and we progressed thru Einsteins 21 equation proof for special relativity - then again i will show the fundamental error of Einsteins special relativity theorem (which was never peer reviewed by the way).

Its important that we get a grip on exactly what time is and thus far I seem to have lost you along the way.

We do need to realize that C the universal constant 'limit velocity of light in a vacuum" is NOT the much vaunted speed of light 3 x 10^8 meters per second - but s in fact infinity!

The so called speed of light, 186,000 miles per second or 3 x 10 6 8 meters per second is just light speed at warp 1!

I suggest that it is the OBSERVABLE light speed limit velocity in a vacuum - beca8se once it jumps to warp 2, its not observable by direct observation at our frame of reference traveling at less than warp 2.

Lets start with a little more from yourself, regards your statements this far!

I'm attempting to give here the necessary grounding for you to follow me to understanding the energy relationship between Time and Mass!

If you look in my signature you will see it referred to as M = Δ T

Mass equals Change in Time

There's as much potential energy 'trapped or compressed if you prefer' in The domain of Time as their is in Mass.

How much energy is in Mass?

Well - After the Manhatten project when the atom was split - we got nuclear energy - a whole fat boys worth at Nagasaki and Hiroshima and today we have nuke power stations worth all over the globe.

Atoms are the building blocks of mass - and the energy in mass is approx 9 x 10 ^ 16 Joules!

If I am correct as I believe and M = Δ T then - by decompressing or realizing the potential energy "trapped or compressed" in just one second of time - we have similar quanta of potential energy available to us! (9 x 10 ^ 16 Joules per second).

One way of doing this could be in spatial circuits.

I will show the working for M = Δ T in my next post - but we really do need to get a grip first on the fundamental of what is time - and the answer that Time is just a form of energy.

Cheers

EireEngineer

08-20-2011, 10:23 AM

Well again,its hrd to see exactly what you are diving at with the wall of copypasta. Can you boil it down a bit?

jane doe

08-20-2011, 11:27 AM

Do gamma brain waves bind with time waves?

Ian Moone

08-20-2011, 11:27 AM

Time is a form of energy, just as mass is!

That's it boiled down!

When you've caught up to that (maybe re read what i have posted thus far) - we can move on to the derivation of M = &Delta T!

If you look in my sig line you'll see that I have expressed M = Δ T and the Δ part renders as a delta or triangle signifying "change in".

So "Mass Equals Change In Time" in energy terms.

Unfortunately the HTML scripting is switched on in my control panel for sigs etc but NOT within the body of forums posts thus its not yet possible for me to render the symbol until We hopefully can get a mod to turn on html scripting for us.

I've asked for this to be altered if possible so that when show the derivation of M = Δ T the workings will be a little easier to follow,

Admittedly one of the wiki quotes I copied across in one of the earlier posts also doesn't render well in this forums architecture but that's neither here nor there - just ignore that bit or read it at the link provided at Wikipedia.

Its taking quite a bit t get used to this forums architecture, I did copy some of my research notes in but being in black text on white background on a word doc they rendered black text on a black background here which was rather amusing!

Not to worry.

Are you familiar with the works of T. E. Bearden, LTC, U.S. Army (Retired)

CEO, CTEC Inc.

Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS)

Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)at all?

There's lots about him and his research on the net f you care to google search, or go direct to his website at http:..The Tom Bearden Website (http://www.cheniere.org),

or

This link gives some background.

The Orion Project - Solving The World Energy Crisis:<br>Some Ancillary Technical Information and Reference (http://www.theorionproject.org/en/solving_bearden.html)

The reason i suggest that is because;-

In it - Bearden suggests that:-

E = Δ TC ^2

(Energy = Change in Time x the universal constant C (speed of light) squared!

You might recall that Einstein also told us something about E (energy) in his special relativity theory E = MC^2 and we do know that for near earth calculations this gives a relatively close result to observed experimental results (Even tho i would argue that the speed of light isn't the value that Mitchellson Morely attributed to it of 3 x 10^8 meters per second or 186,000 miles per second but rather that the REAL value should be infinity).

Anyway the fact that these two physicists have each told us something about Energy and Mass and Time allows us to resolve these two equations to learn more about the relationship between Time and Mass.

Thus:-

If

E = MC^2

& also

E = Δ TC^2

Then it necessarily follows that:-

MC^2= Δ T C^2

(Dividing each side of the equations by C^2 or multiplying each side by the inverse ~ 1/C^2 if you prefer) we are left with?

M = ∆ T

Mass equals Change in Time (in energy terms)

There is as much energy within the domain of Time (passage of time or change in Time as there is within Mass (think splitting the atom - nuclear energy).

And if we wanted to quantify it - there's ~ 9 x 10^16 joules of potential energy in every second of change in time!.

Thats a whale of a LOT of energy.

In fact - militarily speaking its a world balance of power game changer.

Whichever nation/s harness / decompress / release the energy potential of the time domain, will have a tactical advantage over the rest of the world of the order of magnitude that the manhatten project gave to the West in WW2 when we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima after we realized the potential energy in just one atom of mass.

Its pretty clear that the Fukushima accident has shown how potentially dangerous the use of nuclear energy can be - so use of the energy potential of the time domain - will carry equally severe penalty's if we don't get it right (like de orbiting the earth into a decaying spiral orbit until we enter the sun)!

That's the import of this work....... a world paradigm shift!

2012 won;t be as many think the end of the world - what it will be is the end of the domain of time in its dominion over mankind.

Far from being the "time of the end" it will be the end of Time and its dominion over mankind.

What does that mean?

Immortality is what it means - God like elevation until death has no power over mankind.

Isn't that exactly what God has promised us if we only believe in him (the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end? Fine Structure Constant Alpha and infinity Omega!

2012 - the completion of a great year of some almos 2600 earth years is one great revolution of the sun about the milky way galaxy...

Think of this as one giant roller coaster ride that lasts 26000 years - well we are about to get to the end of the fair ground ride and hop out of our carriages (reality state) and enter a NEW reality state.

When you state that travel backwards in time isn't possible, I suspect your incorrect - and that as the scientists at CERN discover twin micro singularities orbiting at the event horizon of a miniature black hole, we will find the as yet mythical warp curvature of local space time sufficient to travel thru the dimension of time in either direction.

We shall in effect become time lords of the Dr Who variety...immortal and masters of new reality states - not bound by our earthly bondage, in this particular reality (Time/Energy) state.

I believe that when we do achieve warp 2 bye projecting a strong stream of charged ionized electron particles ahead of our hyper-light craft to warp or spoil the inertial curvature of local space time upon itself - we will, just like the sound barrier - collapse local space time on itself as we slip thru the light speed barrier to Warp 2 and beyond!

The only phenomenon we should be able to observe (at right angles to direction of travel) should be a brief emission of Cerenkov radiation.

In all truth we will be witnessing Warp speed 9 please Mr Zulu for the star trek fans out there.

You making notes and keeping up?

There's a 20 question test at the end! ;)

Cheers!

Ian Moone

08-20-2011, 11:58 AM

Do gamma brain waves bind with time waves?

Who says Time is a wave form?

I don't know if bind is the right selection of word to describe any interaction.

Do they interact with each other? I suspect not that they might prove to be independent of each other.

Let me give an example here to deomonstrate.

When the sun is shining - we here on the face of the earth receive photons of light! Light appears to propagate across inertial space as a wave form.

At the same time TV and radio stations all over the globe are emitting TV radio waves.

Do the light photons or waves interact (bind) with the TV & radio waves?

Think of gamma brainwaves as energy within a spatial circuit.

Think of time as just a different form of energy!

Light is a form of energy

Mass is a form of energy

In what ways do different forms of energy interact (bind)?

Another example...

A radiographer needs to take an xray in hospital of your broken bone.

Do the light waves in the room interfere in any way with the xrays coming from the radioactive isotope he uses to expose his xray film?

They in fact pass thru each other because they are different forms of energy!

The conservation of energy law dictates that this must be the case I believe. (Energy can neither be created nor destroyed - just transformed/converted from one form to another).

Would it be possible to transform or convert gamma brain waves to another energy form?

Most definitely!

How?

No idea as yet! :eek:

Have you ever noticed that those who seem to possess say psychic powers of pre cognition (the ability to see the future before it occurs) never seem to be able to get the exact timing completely 100% correct?

Some seem able to have pre conceived miraculous events when viewed with the benefit of hindsight -however getting them to9 put a time stamp on it is always fraught with problems.

It would appear as tho there is some kind of time disconnect in this type of sixth sensory perception ability.

Least that's my take on it at this point in time/reality state/frame of reference - who knows in a different reality state!.

Hope that's some help.

A good question and not one I've given a LOT of thought too but I've mulled it over a little from time to time in order to come to the above relative conclusions.

Cheers!

Ian Moone

08-20-2011, 12:16 PM

One quick one before I go tonight!

The above info (Disproving Einsteins special theory of relativity and spilling the beans about the potential energy within the Time domain specifically) is what got me banned from ATS forums and also David Icke forums.

That just goes to prove what many others have already said - that those particular forums are govt disinfo web forums set up to derail the conspiracy movement and that they are frequented by paid govt shills and co-intel-pros who represent the Rockefeller world oil cartel interests by suppressing any energy technology other than oil energy in this world - which they have the world monopoly on.

Until they can work out a way to own the energy of Mass and Time - they will do whatever it takes to suppress this information from the general population.

I figure their time runs out in 2012!

Cheers!

EireEngineer

08-20-2011, 03:48 PM

More likely it was your walls of copypasta that got you banned. I suppose you could view time as a form of energy, but seeing as you cant really convert time into another form of energy, certainly not in the classical sense.

Ian Moone

08-21-2011, 01:32 AM

copypasta

I'm guessing that you do realize - that apart from where I give a link to an online source - in my posts that all of this is copy pasted from my own research notes!

How does one give ones workings and quantify the data to support my hypothesis without giving all the data?

Its so very easy to just makes posts of ones opinion but backing it up with the actual workings & quantifying it mathematically is a different story!

That's what gets me banned - because the disinfo shills typically attack the poster (me), not my work, because they are unable to disprove my work!.

That's what scares the beejesus out of them.

When attacking me personally rather than my work doesn't work - they start reporting me to mods etc and eventually get me banned!

It's a sure fire way for me to discern which forums are govt controlled and run disinfo sites, designed to derail the conspiracy movement and staffed by paid, co - intel - pro disinfo agents / provocateurs of the govt.

I doubt anyone would see anything against the forums rules in anything I've posted thus far.

Same at the other sites - yet banned i was!

Cheers!

EireEngineer

08-21-2011, 06:17 AM

Well no worries about the moderators here. I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with the wall of text other then I think your argument gets lost in it. You definately have an interesting idea here about the nature of time.

Ian Moone

08-21-2011, 12:56 PM

One of the things that Tom Bearden and others suggest as a way of harnessing some of this new energy from the time domain is thru spatial circuits.

Tom describes this in his books and Cds and web site The Tom Bearden Website (http://www.cheniere.org), in great detail and I don't profess to understand his electrical engineering theory or formula at all well when he talks about MEGS (Motionless Electromagnetic Generators).

http://www.cheniere.org/images/meg/AUT_57061a1.jpg

The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG)

Has produced up to 100 times more power than was input, by extracting free energy from the vacuum. The MEG has been independently constructed, and its overunity performance independently replicated, by other researchers. US Patent awarded March 26, 2002 (http://www.cheniere.org/references/MEG_Patent.pdf). Invented by Tom Bearden and four colleagues.

Patent Link http://www.cheniere.org/references/MEG_Patent.pdf

The best way that i can describe it in layman's terms is like this.

Imagine i have a simple circuit with a 12 v car wet cell battery and a length of copper wire and a simple make or break - on or off switch wired in close to the positive pole.

What happens when the switch is closed and the circuit completed?

My limited understanding is this

The electrons starting at the negative pole start to get excited and vibrate and they in turn vibrate the electrons in' the copper wire adjacent to them and so on down the wire until we get to the positive pole of the battery - when this has taken place and the circuit is completed, the battery is discharging, some of the less noble metals are giving up their electrons to the more noble metals immersed in the electrolyte.

Left connected the circuit will eventually exhaust the battery potential charge.

Nothing startlingly new in that!

Now - lets take a closer look at the electrons excitement process in this copper wire!

As I understand it, the moment the circuit is complete the electrons begin to get excited all along the wire starting at one end (the -ve end).

This process is very fast - almost instantaneous, but not quite, it does take a small fraction of time for all the neighboring electrons in the wire to all get excited in turn, along the length of the wire - it might be at a speed approaching light speed even.

So - what if this wire was a LOT longer - like lets say 10 times around the equator of the earth?

Presumably this really long copper wire would take a bit longer time before the very last electron in the wire became excited.

Lets imagine that it took say a couple seconds (it's probably much faster than that)!

What happens inside the battery, as far as the 2 dissimilar (different valence) metals giving up their electrons via the electrolyte?

At what point does these electrons start to migrate thru the electrolyte and the battery discharge take place?

Isn't it ONLY when the circuit is complete?

I.e isn't it ONLY when that last electron in the really long wire starts to vibrate?

So we don't start to use up the potential electrical charge in the battery itself until the circuit is complete - until the very last electron in line gets excited after say 2 seconds.

During the process of the first & second & third electrons etc getting excited and starting to vibrate along this length of wire - no actual discharge is taking place within the battery until that circuit completes and the last electron in the copper wire starts to vibrate.

At the point of the second last electron in the really long wire, vibrating but not the last electron, we haven't yet used up any of the stored electrical charge in our wet cell battery - no electrons have migrated thru the electrolyte between the different valence metals yet because the circuit is not yet complete!

OK.

What if a nano second BEFORE the last electron in the really long wire running 10 times around the earths equator, got excited and began to vibrate, we opened the switch again - thus not allowing the circuit to complete?

Did we not (in theory at least) for a very brief almost 2 seconds - energize (start vibrating) almost every electron in that lengthy wire with potential energy from the time domain?

We didn't use any potential stored electrical energy from the wet cell battery because we didn't allow our circuit to complete, and thus the electrons to migrate across the electrolyte between the two different valence metals inside the battery - we opened the circuit a poofteenth of a nano second BEFORE the circuit became complete!

OK

Now

Lets imagine that its inconvenient to run a copper wire 10 times around the equator of the earth so instead we wrapped our really long insulated copper length of wire around a mild steel rod as a convenient storage place!

During the period that the wire is becoming energized and all its electrons in turn are becoming agitated and starting to vibrate, what effect does this energized coil have on the steel rod its wrapped around?

For a brief sub 2 second period = haven't we created a short duration electro magnet from the steel rod?

What if

The steel rod and really long insulated wire wrapped around it were placed as say an armature winding between say 4 or 6 or more permanent magnets?

Might we not have created a very short duration (sub 2 second) electric coil / permanent magnet motor?

Now

What if.

We had a say automated switching mechanism like a transistor capable of opening and closing a switch many hundreds of times in rapid succession, and we were able to set that switch to repeatedly close then open that potential circuit at the very exact nano second BEFORE the last electron vibrates in the wire - in effect creating short duration repeated electromagnet pulsing effect in the steel rod, and a elecro pulse motor from our armature winding & permanent magnets.

If the armature started to spin (or was spun) at a rate where the switching pulses matched the armature pickups switching rate, wouldn't it be possible to generate electricity of a DC nature from our free energy generator - without ever allowing a circuit to complete and thus preserving the charge in our wet cell battery in perpetuity?

I suspect that in essence this is how Tom Beardens MEGS in his above patent essentially work!

I also understand that in order to slow down the rate at which the electrons flow so that transistorized switching can cope with the short duration pulse period - he is not using copper wire which is a very good conductor -but instead is using something thats more of a semi conductor in actuality what are called doped degenerate semi conductors (think of a verdigris green corroded old copper wire that isn't as fast a conductor as a new shiny copper wire).

If the length of your wire is long enough and your switching rate fast enough, and the rate of energization of your semi conductor slow enough - it's at least theoretically, and it would now appear experimentally, possible to create a time pulsed generator that extracts "work" energy (DC current) from the potential energy of the time domain, by exploiting the known properties of propagation of electrical current along an conducting wire.

With the depicted MEG it appears that there's no moving armature as such and that the energy is produced with solid state circuitry - and I don't for a minute claim to understand how that works I am having enough trouble with the simple theory above.

Others with better electrical knowledge than me might better interpret Bearden's website, than I have been & thus far able to and give a more correct explanation - than i have attempted to do as a layman's explanation above.

Like I said mine is but a layman's understanding of electrical theory at this point in time BUT it appears at least as though this might be but ONE possible way to extract free energy from the time domain - i.e. the time it takes for a wire to energize before a circuit is complete!

Perhaps there are other ways...(mechanically or with light or sound?) who knows!

Not me

YET!

It's a work in progress!

Cheers

EireEngineer

08-22-2011, 06:51 PM

In my experience things like the MEG are generally the design equivalent of snake oil, but I will apply my skills to examining this one because I have to admit I hadnt seen this one.

BlueAngel

08-22-2011, 08:46 PM

Well no worries about the moderators here. I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with the wall of text other then I think your argument gets lost in it. You definately have an interesting idea here about the nature of time.

So, what you're saying is that since Agent Mulder is the moderator of this forum everything; everyone and anything is acceptable.

I really don't think you are in a position to make that assumption and/or pass that falsehood along to other members.

CG adminstration exists.

I suggest you stay on topic or I will have to alert Agent Mulder that you have strayed away from the subject matter.

EireEngineer

08-23-2011, 06:31 PM

Um...it was on topic, just hard to spot in his massive posts.

Ian, about half of his abstract was garbled when I opened it. Does it look that way on your computer too? Its interesting, but the devil is in the details.

Ian Moone

08-23-2011, 09:23 PM

In my experience things like the MEG are generally the design equivalent of snake oil, but I will apply my skills to examining this one because I have to admit I hadnt seen this one.

I guess what makes Tom Bearden's more interesting than most is that he has applied for and received a patent for his! ;)

Tom's a very approachable & genuine guy in my experience - if you have questions I am sure he would respond to an email from you as he often has done for me.

Cheers!

Ian Moone

08-23-2011, 09:38 PM

On Toms Cheniere website he has a downloadable word doc with details of how the MEG works.

I'm assuming thats the abstract your having trouble with?

The doc downloads and opens OK for me!

Here's the contents for you - could be a long post = sorry bout that!

The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator: How It Works.

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Glenice/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif

T. E. Bearden, August 26, 2003

The Problem: Detail the functioning of the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG) {1} and why its COP > 1.0 operation is permissible.

The solution: We explain:

The overwhelming importance of the magnetic vector potential, particularly when one looks through quantum electrodynamic “eyes” and in various gauges.

The Aharonov-Bohm mechanism {2} utilized by the MEG {3,4,5}.

Why the potential energy of any EM system (such as the MEG) can be freely changed at will, and for free, in accord with the gauge freedom principle {6}.

The difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical regauging {7,8}.

Why a nonequilibrium steady state (NESS) system freely receiving energy from its environment can exhibit COP > 1.0.

The direct analogy between the MEG and a common COP = 3.0 heat pump {9}. Discussion 1: Potentials are real and force fields are derived.

The old notion that potentials were merely mathematical conveniences has long been falsified, particularly by the Aharonov-Bohm effect {2}, extended to the Berry phase {10}, and further extended to the geometric phase {11}. There are some 20,000 physics papers on geometric phase, Berry phase, and Aharonov-Bohm effect.

In quantum electrodynamics, potentials are primary and force fields are derived.

The force fields only exist in mass, and are the effects of the interaction of the “force-free fields” in space that exist as curvatures of spacetime. There are no force fields in space; there are only gradients of potentials. Spacetime itself is an intense potential. Quoting Feynman {12}: "We may think of E(x, y, z, t) and B(x, y, z, t) as giving the forces that would be experienced at the time t by a charge located at (x, y, z), with the condition that placing the charge there did not disturb the positions or motion of all the other charges responsible for the fields."

The distinction between E-field and B-field is blurred. As Jackson {13} points out: "…E and B have no independent existence. A purely electromagnetic field in one coordinate system will appear as a mixture of electric and magnetic fields in another coordinate frame. … the fields are completely interrelated, and one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fab, rather than E or B separately."

· In other words, one can have a magnetic component and at least partially turn it into an electric component, or vice versa. This is important to the MEG’s operation.

· Jackson {14} also points out that, for the Coulomb or transverse gauge:

"...transverse radiation fields are given by the vector potential alone, the instantaneous Coulomb potential contributing only to the near fields. This gauge is particularly useful in quantum electrodynamics. A quantum-mechanical description of photons necessitates quantization of only the vector potential. … the scalar potential 'propagates' instantly everywhere in space. The vector potential, on the other hand, satisfies the wave equation ... with its implied finite speed of propagation c."

· Thus it is of primary importance to consider both the scalar potential f and the vector potential A in a system or circuit, and in its surrounding space. In the MEG, one must particularly consider the magnetic vector potential A.

· Indeed, the magnetic vector potential A is so important that it can be taken as the basis of EM energy inherent in the active vacuum {15}.

· Magnetic vector potential A comes in two varieties: (i) the normal A-potential, which has a curl component called the B-field, and (ii) a curl-free A-potential without a curl component and therefore without the B-field (also called a “field-free” A-potential).

Discussion 2: The Aharonov-Bohm effect.

· In the Aharonov-Bohm effect {2}, the B-field is localized in a specific region. Outside that region, there freely appears a field-free (curl-free) magnetic vector potential A. This is a free regauging process, and its occurrence does not require work.

· This “field-free” A-potential still affects and moves electrons. The difficulty in believing the physical reality of the potentials required 25 years for physicists to overcome before they would accept the publication of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in 1959 {2a}.

· By perturbing the A, one can produce an E-field from it by E = -¶A/¶t.

· It is stressed that, in the AB effect, a regauging has taken place. The potential outside the localization zone has been freely changed, with an extra spacetime curvature and extra energy transferred there by gauge freedom, at no cost to the operator.

Discussion 3: Engines, gauge freedom, and regauging.

The vacuum (spacetime) is extraordinarily energetic. For practical purposes, it contains unlimited energy density {16}. Since the vacuum/spacetime contains energy and energy density, it is therefore an extraordinarily powerful potential—essentially infinite in its point intensity.

A “curvature of spacetime” is identically a change in the ambient vacuum potential, and hence in the “available” vacuum energy. “Energy available” means that, to use it, there must exist a potential difference and gradient between two separated points—and thus an energy current (a “free EM wind”, so to speak). Thus a dipolarity (polarization) is required, to produce a vacuum form or “engine” that will interact on mass to produce a force, by a constant “wind of vacuum energy” acting upon it.

An engine {17} is defined as a set of spacetime curvatures and vacuum flux exchanges—and their dynamics—which can act upon the elements of a mass system to generate its state and its dynamics. The simplest engine is a gradient in the potential. Also, an engine is a set of controlled and dynamic “EM energy currents”.

An engine is also referred to as a vacuum engine or a spacetime curvature engine.

The engine exists in spacetime as curvature(s) of spacetime, whether or not it is interacting with mass.

The engine itself is nonobservable; its [I]interacting with mass is observable.

The engine may move or be moved through spacetime independently of interacting with matter. It is pure energy transfer, and it is work-free.

A force is just the coupling of the simplest engine to mass, with mass-translating orientation. Unless both the engine and mass are present and dynamically coupled, there is no force. We strongly note that mass is a component of force, by F º¶/¶t(mv), and classical mechanics errs in assuming a separate massless force operating upon a separate mass. That notion remains one of the great errors in modern physics.

When a force F translates through a distance, that is the classical notion of external mechanical work W, by the equation W = ò F·dl. Note that—classically—mass has been moved, and the “system” engine has performed “external” work on the mass.

“Stress” on a mass or in a system is the simultaneous application of two or more engines working on the mass or system in such manner that all translation vectors sum to zero vectorially. Hence no external work is done, but internal work is done on the system to produce and continuously maintain this stress with zero translation.

Work is not the change of magnitude of energy in a single form! It is the change of form of energy, from one form to another.

Thus there is a century-old error in the present First Law of thermodynamics: Any change of magnitude of an external parameter (such as the field or potential of a system) has been erroneously defined as work. It is not work if the extra energy is input in the same form. In that case it is asymmetric regauging, and involves only energy transfer without change of form, which requires no work. Regauging is free, by the gauge freedom axiom. The present form of the First Law would rule out gauge freedom—a fact which seems not to have been previously noticed.

The supersystem {17} consists of the physical mass system together with its “engines” and all the ongoing mutual interactions. Hence supersystem dynamics is analyzed simultaneously between (i) the physical system, (ii) the local active curvatures of spacetime, and (iii) the local active vacuum. All three components of the supersystem continually interact with each other.

Discussion 4: Nonequilibrum steady state (NESS) systems can permissibly exhibit COP > 1.0 and even COP = ¥.

A system far from equilibrium in its energy exchange with its environment can steadily and freely receive environmental energy and dissipate it in external loads, exhibiting COP > 1.0 (as does a heat pump) or COP = ¥ (as do the solar cell, windmill, waterwheel, sailboat, etc.).

However, Lorentz symmetrical regauging selects only those Maxwellian systems in net equilibrium with their external vacuum environment. Symmetrical regauging systems can only use their excess free regauging energy from the vacuum to do internal work on the system, changing the stress on or in the system, with the dissipated energy then being returned from the stressing action to the vacuum. Such systems cannot use their excess vacuum energy to do free external work on the load.

The standard Lorentz regauging of Maxwell’s equations thus arbitrarily discards all Maxwellian NESS systems using vacuum energy to do useful external work.

In electrical power systems, the ubiquitous use of the closed current loop circuit self-enforces Lorentz symmetrical regauging. That is totally arbitrary, but unrecognized.

The present-day absence of COP > 1.0 normal electrical power systems, doing external work and freely taking all their input energy from the local vacuum and spacetime curvature, is strictly due to the archaic electrical engineering model and the prevailing use of the closed current loop circuit.

Electrical power engineers easily adapt for a COP = ¥ system such as a solar cell, utilizing energy from its observably active environment. They will not even go and learn (and adapt their archaic model) to properly utilize every system’s nonobservable active vacuum environment for energy to do external work. Instead, they will unwittingly only allow the active vacuum to produce stress in the system, by using only self-symmetrically-regauging systems (the closed current loop circuit).

For a COP > 1.0 or COP = ¥ electrical power system—taking some or all of its input energy freely from its active external (vacuum) environment, analogous to a home heat pump—the system must violate the closed current loop condition (symmetrical regauging) for at least a significant fraction of the operational cycle of the system. In simple terms, the system must be open to receiving and transducing translational energy from its external environment—in this case, the active vacuum—rather than just stressing energy.

There also emerge additional flaws in classical thermodynamics, including in its fundamental definitions:

An “open” system is defined as one that has mass transfer across its borders (and may have energy transfer as well).

A “closed” system is defined as one that has no mass transfer across its borders, but may have energy transfer across them. Since the early 1900’s, mass and energy are known to be identically the same thing, called “mass-energy”. Hence any “closed” system that has energy transfer also has its mass changed, and actually is an “open” system.

An “isolated” system is defined as one in which no energy or mass is exchanged across its boundary. There exists no such system in the entire universe, due to the universal exchange of energy and mass between vacuum and system.

The ubiquitous energetic exchange—between vacuum (and curved spacetime) and the system—does not appear in classical thermodynamics. Yet there is no final conservation of energy unless both the virtual and observable state energy exchanges are considered in one’s analysis.

In the presence of opposite charges and their broken symmetry, much of the virtual vacuum energy absorbed in a dipolar system becomes observable energy in the system. For that reason, the present classical thermodynamics rules are approximations, useful in a great many cases but not absolute. As Kondepudi and Prigogine point out {18}: “…there is no final formulation of science; this also applies to thermodynamics.” Discussion 5: Operation of a home heat pump .

· Efficiency x of an energy or power unit is defined as the total useful energy or external work output of the system, divided by its total energy input from all sources. It is commonly expressed as a percentage.

· The home heat pump {19} may have a nominal efficiency x of x = 50%, which means it wastes half of the total energy input to it from all sources.

· In addition to the operator’s electrical input (which he pays for), the heat pump also utilizes some extra heat energy received from the environment {20}. Thus there are two energy inputs: (i) the electrical energy input paid for by the operator, and (ii) the free environmental energy input furnished by the external atmosphere and processed a bit by compressing, etc. at very low cost.

· The home heat pump thus has two “energy reservoirs”: (i) the electrical energy reservoir furnished by the operator and paid for by him, and (ii) the atmospheric heat energy reservoir furnished freely by the atmosphere.

· Coefficient of performance (COP) is defined as the total useful energy or work output of the system, divided by the operator’s energy input only. It is stated as a decimal, and measures how much “bang for his buck” the system gives the operator.

· Operating in good conditions, a home heat pump of efficiency x = 50% will exhibit a COP = 3.0 to 4.0. The maximum theoretical COP = 8.0 or so. Note that energy is conserved, and all energy output as work is indeed input to the system. No energy is “created out of nothing”. However, the operator only inputs a fraction of the total input required, and the environment freely inputs the rest. The system permissibly outputs 3 to 4 times the useful energy and work as the energy furnished by the operator alone. The excess energy is freely input by the external environment.

· By “overunity power system” we refer to a COP > 1.0, which is permitted by the laws of physics and thermodynamics for NESS systems such as the heat pump. We do not refer to x > 100%, which would require creation of energy from nothing at all.

Discussion 5: Operation of the MEG, analogous to a heat pump.

· The MEG resembles a transformer, having a core of special nanocrystalline material, input coil or coils in the primary, and output coil or coils in the secondary. Its operation, however, is quite different from that of a normal transformer.

· The special nanocrystalline core material used in the MEG has a very special characteristic: The material itself freely localizes an inserted B-field (from the input coil, or from a separate permanent magnet, or both) within the core material itself. Therefore it also freely evokes the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect.

· Outside the core, there freely appears an extra curl-free magnetic vector potential A.

· The MEG thus has two energy reservoirs: (i) the normal B-field energy and flux of any transformer resulting from the energy input to its primary coil(s), but now totally localized within the core material, and (ii) an extra free A-potential energy reservoir freely appearing just outside the core material itself.

· Consequently, the MEG is free to output the normal amount of energy from the

B-field flux that a normal transformer would output, and also as much extra energy as it receives and collects from the A-potential in space outside the core.

· The MEG thus has become directly analogous to the heat pump. It has one energy reservoir—the localized B-field in the core—whose energy the operator must furnish and pay for. But it also has a second, free, environmental energy reservoir—a curl-free A-potential—freely available in the external environment.

· Accordingly, for COP > 1.0 operation, the MEG must “process” the available

A-potential reservoir energy into usable form, and use it to help power its load.

· By inputting nearly rectangular pulses to the input coil, the rise time and decay time of each pulse edge produces a resulting sharp change in the external A-potential, producing an E-field by the equation E = -¶A/¶t. Note particularly that, by adjusting the input pulse rise time and decay time, we can adjust the magnitude of the extra E-fields freely produced in space just outside the core, and this effect is easily measured.

· We strongly stress that sharp gradients—such as used for leading and trailing edges of the input pulses to the MEG, with resulting sharp field gradients in the core materials and in the uncurled A-potential—are already recognized to permissibly violate the second law of thermodynamics {21}.

· By adjusting the magnitude of the E-fields outside the MEG core and their frequency (and therefore the energy received from them), one can adjust the available converted E-field energy in the free external reservoir, and thus adjust how much of it is then collected by the MEG.

· This free E-field energy impinges directly upon the MEG’s “output” coil, which now also serves as an input coil. Almost all the B-field produced by the output coil is localized in the core material running through it and held therein.

· The E-field energy from space outside the core thus activates the output coil in almost a purely electric field manner, rather than in a mostly magnetic field manner. The MEG becomes almost a purely “electrical” transformer!

· The output current from the coil is almost in phase with the output voltage (within about 2 degrees). Hence the MEG is almost completely using its induced Aharonov-Bohm effect for its energy input—very different from any other power system transformer.

· Due to its “heat pump” type operation, the MEG becomes a NESS system, freely receiving excess energy from its second (environmental) energy reservoir that is furnished “for free” by the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

· Accordingly, as a NESS system {22} the MEG can permissibly exhibit COP > 1.0. For the MEG, a COP = 3.0 or so is readily achievable, and even higher COP can be achieved by special measures.

· However, one notes the MEG’s high nonlinearity, and thus its susceptibility to nonlinear oscillations and the need for nonlinear control theory and implementation. Also, the ¶A/¶t operation and its E-fields produced, do interact with other coils on the core, including the primary, etc. Hence timing and phasing are critical. An out-of-phase MEG-like unit can worsen the COP < 1.0 a normal transformer would produce! But a properly phased MEG with proper nonlinear control will produce all signals additive as needed at their individual locations. That “optimized” MEG then will produce COP > 1.0. Scale-up also is highly nonlinear, and requires extensive phenomenology buildups and testing to achieve proper stability and control.

· COP = ¥ (self-powering operation similar to a solar cell) is permitted for the MEG (as a NESS system) by the laws of thermodynamics and physics. However, with scale-up phenomenology, materials variations, and the high nonlinearity of the situation, at least one year’s hard work by a team of multiple specialists in geometric phase, nonlinear oscillation theory, nonlinear oscillations control theory, etc. is needed, and modeling must be done in a higher group symmetry electrodynamics. It is certainly doable (just as a home heat pump can be “close looped” for self-powering operation). But it is not a trivial little conventional EM transformer task. It is not simple, and it is not cheap.

· The end result is that we have a successful proof-of-principle MEG experimental device, and a patent has been granted, with additional patent work continuing. But we still have an expensive year or more of complex and specialized lab work before we have prototype scaled-up robust power units ready for mass production and world marketing. We are presently seeking the major funding for that completion.

Conclusions:

· COP > 1.0 and COP = ¥ electrical power systems are perfectly permissible by the laws of thermodynamics and physics; as witness the existence of solar cells with COP = ¥.

· Rigorous proof is given by the Aharonov-Bohm effect itself {2}, gauge freedom, the solar cell, Bohren’s experiment {23}, and several other experimental entities such as the patented MEG. Bedini {24}, e.g., has viable, proven processes for producing COP > 1.0 in battery-powered systems, and for regauging batteries {25} and charging them with more energy than is furnished by the operator alone (the excess energy comes from free regauging).

· Overunity and self-powering electrical power systems cleanly taking their energy from the local vacuum can be developed any time the U.S. scientific community will permit it and allow it to be funded. The naïve objection of “perpetual motion machines being prohibited because they would be working systems with no energy input” is utter nonsense, as is easily demonstrated {26}. Every windmill, waterwheel, sailboat, and solar cell demonstrates that, if the energy input is continuously and freely received from the environment, continuous external work can freely be done indefinitely. Every motion also demonstrates Newton’s first law: an object placed in a state of motion remains in that state of uniform (perpetual) motion so long as an external force does not intervene to change it. It does not receive any additional energy to do so, nor does it perform any external work in so doing. Even an electrical current in a shorted superconducting circuit will circulate indefinitely (perpetually) without any additional input and without doing any work {27}. Experimental proof of it is part of the standard physics literature.

Outlook and Forecast (the author’s opinion):

· The blame for the terribly fragile and highly vulnerable present power system and power grid monstrosity lies squarely upon the shoulders of the scientific community, since the discovery and proof of broken symmetry in 1957 {28}.

· From our direct experience with several legitimate COP > 1.0 EM systems, we are of the opinion that the scientific community will uphold its present dogma, its present severely limited and flawed electrical engineering model, and its present slavish attachment to fuel cells, big nuclear power plants, hydrocarbon combustion, etc.

· Not only will the present scientific and electrical engineering communities fiddle while Rome burns, but they will help burn it. The only way that will change is for a huge boot to be applied—such as the economic collapse of the United States.

· The scientific community has always been this way, in its fierce resistance to really innovative developments. A few examples are as follows: The scientific community:

o Fiercely resisted ultrawideband radar, slandering and libeling its pioneers.

o Resisted Mayer’s original statement of energy conservation; hounded him so much that he attempted suicide and was institutionalized.

o Laughed and slandered Ovshinsky on his “insane” amorphous semi-conductor. “Everybody knew” a semiconductor had to have a crystalline structure. The Japanese who funded Ovshinsky are still laughing all the way to the bank.

o Made Wegener’s name a synonym for “utter fool” because of his continental drift theory. Why, imagine continents floating and moving! Insane!”

o Refused to accept the Aharonov-Bohm effect for 25 years (as pointed out by Feynman). Prior to the MEG, the AB effect appears never to have been applied for COP > 1.0 from “two-energy reservoir” electrical power systems.

o Uses an EE model that assumes every EM field, EM potential, and joule of EM energy in the universe has been freely created from nothing, by their associated source charges without any energy input. Even very few EE professors are aware of that terrible faux pas of their model. It is not pointed out in any EE textbook, to our knowledge.

o Uses an EE model that assumes the material ether, a flat spacetime, an inert vacuum, and creation from nothing of all EM fields and potentials—all long falsified in physics. These flaws are not pointed out in any EE text or department to our knowledge, and indeed they are hidden from the students.

o Ubiquitously uses the closed current loop circuit in power systems, dooming them to COP < 1.0 and directly causing the present mess of the inadequate, monstrous, fragile, splintered, relatively unstable, and highly vulnerable power grids. This also is directly responsible for the continuing and ever-increasing hydrocarbon combustion, global warming gases, pollution of the planet, and strangling of species.

o Still largely pontificates in official publications that perpetual (uniform) motion is impossible in machines, which is ridiculous since that is merely Newton’s first law. A continuous freely working machine is also possible, so long as it freely receives the necessary energy input from its environment (so long as it operates as a NESS system). Examples are the windmill, waterwheel, and solar cell—and indeed a hydroelectric power system, if one speaks of the entire system including the river’s flow.

o Ridicules anyone who seriously speaks of the active vacuum or active ST curvature as energy reservoirs and environments to be utilized practically—even though all EM power systems and circuits are powered by EM energy extracted directly from the local vacuum by the source charges {22b}.

o Continues to ruthlessly ignore the impact of the long-discarded Heaviside giant nondiverged energy flow component, for both power systems and antigravity systems.

o Places an iron muzzle on “out of the box” innovation by professors, grad students, and young post doctoral scientists, particularly in anything smacking of COP > 1.0 EM power systems. They must compete for available funding attached to research packages that come down from on high, with the research already specified. Any professor who really rocks the boat will be either parked or destroyed, as will any grad student or post doc. Science is controlled by controlling its funding. Since its funding is already controlled, our science is already muzzled and constrained with respect to energy research and development.

· Hence, based on his available scientific advice, a Presidential decision was made to (i) allow updating old power plants without additional pollution controls, (ii) go for drilling wherever oil is to be found, (iii) massively increase the grid and the number of power plants, (iv) go for fuel cells as an intended answer to the transport problem, etc. Given the scientific advice he receives, the President sees no other choice available. That is sad, because the “energy from the vacuum” choice is available, particularly with accelerated development and funding.

· As an example from the standard physics literature, the Bohren-type experiment {23} in “negative resonance absorption of the medium” outputs some 18 times as much energy as one inputs in one’s accounted Poynting energy input. Poynting’s energy flow theory {29} does not account for a huge Heaviside nondiverged energy flow component (30) that is often a trillion times greater than the accounted Poynting component. Lorentz arbitrarily discarded the Heaviside nondiverged component circa the 1890s {31}, and EEs continue to blindly discard it and ignore it {32}.

References:

Stephen L. Patrick, Thomas E. Bearden, James C. Hayes, Kenneth D. Moore, and James L. Kenny, "Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," U.S. Patent # 6,362,718, Mar. 26, 2002.

(a) Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, “Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory,” Phys. Rev., Second Series, 115(3), 1959, p. 485-491; (b) — “Further considerations on electromagnetic potentials in the quantum theory,” Phys. Rev., 123(4), Aug. 15, 1961, p. 1511-1524. A good technical exposition of the Aharonov-Bohm effect and its topology is given by (c) Terence W. Barrett, "Topological Approaches to Electromagnetism, Part V. Aharonov-Bohm Effect," Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, Myron W. Evans, Ed., Wiley, New York, 2001, p. 722-733.

(a) M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., "Classical Electrodynamics Without the Lorentz Condition: Extracting Energy from the Vacuum," Physica Scripta 61(5), May 2000, p. 513-517; (b) — "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator with O(3) Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(1), Feb. 2001, p. 87-94; (c) — "Explanation of the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator by Sachs's Theory of Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 14(4), 2001, p. 387-393. See also (d) M. W. Evans, T. E. Bearden, and A. Labounsky, "The Most General Form of the Vector Potential in Electrodynamics," Found. Phys. Lett., 15(3), June 2002, p. 245-261.

(a) T. E. Bearden, "Extracting and Using Electromagnetic Energy from the Active Vacuum," in M. W. Evans (ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3 vols., Wiley, 2001, Vol. 2, p. 639-698; (b) — "Energy from the Active Vacuum: The Motionless Electromagnetic Generator," in M. W. Evans (Ed.), Modern Nonlinear Optics, Second Edition, 3-vols., Wiley, 2001, Vol. 2, p. 699-776; (c) — Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, Cheniere Press, Santa Barbara, CA, 2002, Chapter 7: “Aharonov-Bohm Effect, Geometric Phase, and the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator”.

M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Runaway Solutions of the Lehnert Equations: The Possibility of Extracting Energy from the Vacuum,” Optik, 111(9), 2000, p. 407-409.

To see how Maxwell’s equations are conventionally regauged symmetrically, see J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Wylie, New York, Third Edition, 1999, p. 240-246.

For a discussion of asymmetrical regauging, see M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “Some Notes on ‘Asymmetric Regauging’,” J. New Energy 4(3), Winter 1999, p. 325-326.

For a discussion on symmetrical regauging, see Jackson, 1999, ibid.

T. E. Bearden, “Motionless Electromagnetic Generator: Production of an Additional Energy Reservoir Freely Furnishing Extra EM Energy Input to the System from Its External Environment,” 10 June 2003 (in press).

M. W. Berry, "Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes," Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. A392, 1984, p. 45-57.

Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, "Phase Change During a Cyclic Quantum Evolution," Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 58, 1987, p. 1593-1596.

Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, Vol. II, 1964, p. 1-3.

J. D. Jackson, ibid., p. 558.

J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 2nd Edn., Wylie, 1975, p. 223.

M. W. Evans, P. K. Anastasovski, T. E. Bearden et al., “The Aharonov-Bohm Effect as the Basis of Electromagnetic Energy Inherent in the Vacuum,” Found. Phys. Lett. 15(6), Dec. 2002, p. 561-568.

See R. Podolny, Something Called Nothing: Physical Vacuum: What Is It?, Mir Publishers, Moscow, 1986, p. 181. In mass units, the energy density of the virtual particle flux of vacuum is on the order of 1080 grams per cubic centimeter. To express it in joules per cubic centimeter, it is (c2)(1080).

See T. E. Bearden, Fact Sheet: “Supersystem and Engines: Understanding Energetics,” Aug. 25, 2003.

Dilip Kondepudi and Ilya Prigogine, Modern Thermodynamics: From Heat Engines to Dissipative Structures, Wiley, New York, 1998, reprinted with corrections 1999, p. 459. On the same page, several areas that are known to violate present thermodynamics are given.

William C. Reynolds, Thermodynamics, 2nd Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968, p. 250-252 gives an analysis of the Carnot heat pump.

See Robert H. Romer, "Heat is not a noun," Am. J. Phys., 69(2), Feb. 2001, p. 107-109. Heat is not a substance, not a thermodynamic function of state, and should not be used as a noun, unless one risks falling into error. AJP Editor Romer also exposes another serious EM error: In endnote 24, p. 109, he takes to task "…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram. 'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate." "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place." As the reader can see, many physics professors and journal editors are quite aware of numerous foundations errors in present science.

Kondepudi and Prigogine, ibid.

(a) See particularly D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920. In theory a proper NESS system can produce continuous negative entropy. Evans and Rondoni were so shocked at their own theoretical results, that they felt no physical system could exhibit such a negative entropy, continually decreasing toward negative infinity as time passes. However, every charge does this already; see (b) T. E. Bearden, Fact Sheet, “The Source Charge Problem: Its Solution and Implications,” Aug. 18, 2003; (c) — Fact Sheet, “Leyton’s Hierarchies of Symmetry: Solution to the Major Asymmetry Problem of Thermodynamics,” Aug. 22, 2003. The MEG as a NESS system appears to be a prototype macroscopic power system that exhibits such permissible continuous production of negative entropy.

(a) Craig F. Bohren, "How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?" Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 323-327. Under nonlinear conditions, a particle can absorb more energy than is in the light incident on it. Metallic particles at ultraviolet frequencies are one class of such particles and insulating particles at infrared frequencies are another. See also

(a) H. Paul and R. Fischer, {Comment on “How can a particle absorb more than the light incident on it?’},” Am. J. Phys., 51(4), Apr. 1983, p. 327. The Bohren experiment is repeatable and produces COP = 18.

See T. E. Bearden, "Bedini's Method For Forming Negative Resistors In Batteries," Proc. Cong. 2000, St. Petersburg, Russia, Vol. 1, July 2000, p. 24-38. Also published in J. New Energy, 5(1), Summer 2000, p. 24-38. Also carried on restricted DoE website http://www.ott.doe.gov/electromagnetic/ and on http://www.cheniere.org (http://www.cheniere.org/).

(a) John C. Bedini, “Device and Method for Pulse Charging a Battery and for Driving other Devices with a Pulse,” U. S. Patent #2003/0117111 A1, June 26, 2003. For another legitimate overunity Bedini process, see (b) John C. Bedini, “Device and Method of a Back EMF Permanent Electromagnetic Motor Generator,” U.S. Patent # 6,392,370, May 21, 2002.

See Fact Sheet, T. E. Bearden, “Perpetual motion vs. ‘Perpetual Working Machines Creating Energy from Nothing’,” Aug. 21, 2003 for a rigorous discussion of perpetual motion (which is just Newton’s First Law), and how it differs from purported machines that create energy from nothing. Oddly, the greatest—though totally unwitting—proponents of energy creation from nothing, in all human history, are the electrical engineering departments, professors, textbooks, and engineers. Their standard electromagnetics model assumes that all EM fields and potentials and their energy are freely created out of nothing, by the associated source charges without any energy input at all. So they unwittingly assume that every joule of EM energy in the universe has been and is created from nothing. This is the unwitting ansatz that has given us COP < 1.0 standard electrical power systems, horrid pollution of the biosphere and strangling of species, accelerated global warming, and a far more poisonous and hostile environment in which to live. And, to the delight of many of the energy cartels, it is also what has kept the electrical power meter on our homes and offices and industry, and has kept the gas pump meter on the gas pumps for our automobiles and transport. One must keep one’s sense of humor! By failing to update and extend their grossly inadequate electrical engineering model, our scientific community is directly contributing to the decimation of the planet and the future collapse of the industrialized national economies.

Decay time for a current flowing in a closed superconducting loop has been experimentally shown to be greater than 105 years, and theoretically shown to be greater than 1040,000,000 years.

(a) T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Physical Review, 104(1), Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-259. Errata in Phys. Rev. 106(6), June 15, 1957, p. 1371; (b) T. D. Lee, Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," Phys. Rev., 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345. Experimental proof was given by Wu and her colleagues in (c) C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes and R. P. Hudson, "Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay," Phys. Rev., Vol. 105, 1957, p. 1413. So revolutionary was this discovery that the Nobel Committee with unprecedented speed awarded Lee and Yang the Nobel Prize in December 1957—the same year that Wu et al. experimentally proved the prediction by Lee and Yang.

(a) J. H. Poynting, “On the transfer of energy in the electromagnetic field,” Phil. Trans Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 175, 1884, p. 343-361; (b) J. H. Poynting, "On the Connection Between Electric Current and the Electric and Magnetic Inductions in the Surrounding Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Vol. 176, 1885, p. 277-306.

(a) Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Induction and Its Propagation," The Electrician, 1885, 1886, 1887, and later. A series of 47 sections, published section by section in numerous issues of The Electrician during 1885, 1886, and 1887; (b) — "On the Forces, Stresses, and Fluxes of Energy in the Electromagnetic Field," Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., 183A, 1893, p. 423-480. Also, particularly see (c) E. R. Laithwaite, “Oliver Heaviside – establishment shaker,” Electrical Review, 211(16), Nov. 12, 1982, p. 44-45.

H. A. Lorentz, Vorlesungen über Theoretische Physik an der Universität Leiden, Vol. V, Die Maxwellsche Theorie (1900-1902), Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft M.B.H., Leipzig, 1931, "Die Energie im elektromagnetischen Feld," p. 179-186. Figure 25 on p. 185 shows the Lorentz concept of integrating the Poynting vector around a closed cylindrical surface surrounding a volumetric element. This procedure arbitrarily selects only a small component of the energy flow associated with a circuit—specifically, the small Poynting component being diverged into the circuit to power it—and then treats that tiny component as the "entire" energy flow. Thereby Lorentz arbitrarily discarded the huge Heaviside circuital energy transport component that is usually not diverged into the circuit conductors at all, does not interact with anything locally, and is just wasted.

We address this Heaviside extra energy flow phenomenon—and many others—in our book, Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts and Principles, ibid., 2002. When the Heaviside component is accounted, every generator and power source ever built already outputs enormously more energy than is accounted by the mechanical shaft energy input to the generator, or by the chemical energy dissipated by the battery. Accounting its total energy output as an energy transducer of virtual vacuum energy into observable energy, every power source exhibits COP>>1.0. The Heaviside component usually has little or no effect because it is in vector curl form, and the divergence of the curl is zero—in a flat spacetime. The usual power application is in an approximately flat spacetime, so the Heaviside curled flow component is of little physical significance (using Lorentz’s original argument). However, by deliberately curving the local spacetime (e.g., as in Bohren’s experiment and in the negative resonance absorption of the medium), the divergence of the curl is not zero, and additional energy is freely collected from the neglected Heaviside component. Bohren’s straightforward experiment yields COP = 18. The simple funding of a few doctoral theses and post-doctoral physics projects in this area for three years or so would very quickly solve the energy crisis forever, very cheaply. All EM power systems already exhibit COP >>1.0, if their arbitrarily discarded Heaviside energy flow component is accounted and if it were deliberately used as an extra huge environmental energy reservoir from which copious extra EM energy were freely extracted.

E.g., if a present coal-burning plant were modified with a Bohren-process so that it “amplified” the heat input of the combustion process by a factor of 10, then only 10% of the present coal would have to be burned in that modified plant to produce its same electrical power output. The beneficial impact on the environment would be incalculable, and with less coal burned, additional pollution-reducing methods could be afforded and applied. No one in DoE, any other federal agency, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, DARPA, the national laboratories, or our universities has even considered it—or apparently even thought of it.

Hope that asissts!

Cheers!

EireEngineer

08-24-2011, 06:08 AM

Thanks. I finally figured out why it was garbled but of course only after you had posted it. Life has a funny way of doing that I guess. Still reading as there is a lot there. I would not be overly impressed by the fact that he has a patent for this though. There are many perpetual motion machines logged in the patent archives. To get a patent you merely have to prove that your idea is original, not that it actually works or is useful. Hell, I have two patents for mathematical algorithms that I only thought might be useful. Thanks again.

agent_mulder

08-24-2011, 07:00 PM

thanks for all of the information,

There is a lot to digest and I am still reading, so sorry that this response is vague, once I complete reading (and comprehending) I will come back and post some more, I just didn't want you to think that I wasn't interested in your posts :)

Ian Moone

08-24-2011, 08:00 PM

Just glad that anyone's reading along Agent Mulder. Please feel free to comment for or against the ideas presented here that's why I put them up for others to think them thru and correct me where i may have erred (many brains are better than 1).

At the end of the day I am looking for the truth as i suspect are we all.

Truthfully Although these appear very long posts and they are - I have actually abbreviated a LOT of the early work, disproving Ensteins special theory of relativity, and correcting mitchellson morelys light speed experiments to verify the existence of space ether and so on.

I am happy to go back and start in more detail at the beginning for anyone interested, in how i GOT to M = ΔT after a lot of re working the fundamentals of understanding about Time Space and Energy etc.

Its fascinating how science has been led astray for so many years due to Einsteins simple error and to be truth-full its just possible that we could formulate the GUT Grand Unification Theorem right here on the forum if there were enough keen to try (mathematics and resolving physics equations is an area I struggle with - perhaps members like Erie engineer and others could contribute their expertise in overcoming those weaknesses if they are of a mind to?).

I really hope so.

Cheers!

EireEngineer

08-25-2011, 06:21 AM

Out of curiosity...how much research have you done into Tom Bearden and his methods of operation?

Ian Moone

08-25-2011, 08:12 PM

Enough - is the short answer - to know that whats more productive is to critique his work rather than attack the man Erie Engineer.

In short I took it that an engineer had a formal degree qualification at least all the civil engineers I worked with and the one in our family have degrees - yet thus far from yourself I see little of any sort of technical nature in regardss to anything posted here yet at all - either for or against.

You agree that its an interesting concept that I appear to have yet haven't been able to offer anything constructive yet about one thing I've posted.

Now you would appear to want to attack the credentials of Tom Bearden?

I do know the guy worked for the US military as a nuclear war planner in the pentagon until his retirement.

In his communications with me over M = Δ T - he has been nothing but forthright frank and very helpful.

As I've posted here - the first tactic in the past at any website of govt agent provocateurs, shills and dis-info touts has been to attack either me the poster or anyone referenced - rather than try to disprove my work or Tom Bearden's for example.

Supposedly your an engineer which suggests a degree qualification and a brain capable of analysing and interpreting for itself. One would suspect you should have the mathematical and technical ability to discern for yourself - where exactly the truth lies.

The threads titled "What exactly is time"... how wuold your question about Tom bearden be in any way related to the thread title?

Please don't make the mistake of stooping to the same levels as other disinfo shills - by attacking myself or Bearden - because you don't understand whats been posted. I think you have the intellectual capacity to be brighter than that!

The works already posted for you its quantified and referenced.

Would it be helpfull too you if i were to show where Einstein and Mitchellson Morely erred in their experimental design for light speed and special relativity?

Its a very interesting topic - it is Germain to understand the import of whats been posted here.

The reason that it wasn't posted earlier is because.... some one here who is obviously having difficulty following whats been posted, started complaining about walls of "copy pasta".

Usually to me at least that signifies someone of relative young age who hasn't the attention span any longer than a coke commercial and reads nothing longer than a sms message on his mobile phone..

Most often the impatient youth, ask for "the cliff notes version" - they want the instant gratification without doing the work which is so typical of today's me me me generation.

The works there for anyone with the intelligence to understand.

If you have the ability to understand I will walk you thru Mitchellson Morleys (And later Sagnacs) linear and later rotational analogue light speed experiements and Eisteins 21 equation special relativity proof, and point out the errors - that have led to the problems we now have in classical Maxwell / Heaviside physics model & electrical theory thats held us back these last 50 or so years!

I've already shown for example that E=MC^2 is flawed mathematically due to the negative root solution in that it gives a paradoxical outcome indicating a false premise at the outset.

If you are interested in the physics then stand bye for some lengthy posts about light and special relativity and solar tea cup analogy's.

Lets not descend into attacking posters or references credibility, its not likely to teach us anything new about physics or in the case of this thread TIME.

I believe we are better than that!

Of course I am prepared to be proven wrong (in my assumption about our worth as people). ;)

Cheers!

Ian Moone

08-25-2011, 08:29 PM

“Einstein's Relativity Error

“The physical sciences in 1873 seemed to once again take on an air of stability as James Clerk Maxwell published his, 'Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.'

In this paper, he discussed electricity, magnetism, and electromagnetism as functions of waves in a fluid space (ether). His theory held popular support until the year 1887 when the two U.S. physicists AA Michelson and Edward W Morley performed their historic experiment with light.

Their experiment (The Michelson-Morley experiment) was designed to use light as a means to determine if space were a 'fluid' as Maxwell's equations had assumed.

The M-M test results, however, appeared to deny the existence of fluid (or ether) space. To explain the 'apparent' failure of the M-M test to detect the ether, Hendrik Lorentz and George Fitzgerald developed their now famous 'transforms' (The Lorentz-Fitzgerald Transforms - 1902) in which length contractions, mass increase and time lag were offered as explanation for the negative test result. Note that the Lorentz - Fitzgerald transforms still treated space as an inertial fluid, one undetectable by known technology.

Einstein, who first began the formulation of his special theory of relativity in 1895, published it in 1905. He seized upon the Lorentz -Fitzgerald transforms and the M-M test results as evidence of a universal axiom: The velocity of light is (to the observer) the limit measurable velocity in the universe, (this does not mean it is the limit velocity in the universe however).

The discipline details

Einstein was faced with an apparent paradox, as to the nature of space. It behaved like a fluid in many ways - yet in others it behaved like an abstract, ten-component Ricci Tensor from the Reimannian model of the Universe. The failure of the M-M test to detect an ether was the final straw. Yet, hard as he tried, Einstein failed to remove the ether from E=MC^2.

The following discussion should illustrate this point.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/SpeedofLight1.jpg

Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space.

It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another.

This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c)

And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b):

Assuming:

c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer

S = distance GA = GB

T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG)

T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG)

T = .5 t T2

V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer.

Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to:

(Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1

Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2

By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12

Hence:

(Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5

Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains:

(Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5

rearranging:

(Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5

Substituting: t = .5t2

Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5

Or:

(Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5

by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains:

(Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s

which reduces to:

(Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees:

(Eq 6.) ve = 0

Hence:

(Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1

Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each successive try of the linear M - M test has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord….

Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether.

Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows:

Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

(to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).

Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,…

Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer

Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider

Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it

Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it

Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:

(Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2

So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension

(Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1

or,…

(Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2

then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

which reduces to:

(Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type:

(Eq. 12) (1- b) -a

Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:

(Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc

where b2 is less than 1

So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2

One obtains:

(Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc…

For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):

(Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2

so (Eq. 11) becomes:

(Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c

developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2

(Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2

remembering energy (E) is represented by:

(Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c)

One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving…

(Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v)

Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives:

(Eq. 20) M = E/ c2

Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):

(Eq. 21) E = m c2

(Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)

Looking at the assumption in (Eq. 19)…( ve ) was the term used in the beginning to represent the ether wind velocity… This means Einstein used fluid space as a basis for special relativity. His failing was in declaring the velocity of light an observable limit to the velocity of any mass when it should only have been the limit to any observable electromagnetic wave velocity in the ether . The velocity of light is only a limit velocity in the fluid of space where it is being observed. If the energy density of space is greater or less in another part of space, then the relativistic velocity of light will pass up and down through the reference light wave velocity limit - if such exists.

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that this fluid space cannot have varying energy-density Perhaps the reader is this very moment saying, an incompressible fluid space does not allow concentrations of energy - but he is wrong - dead wrong!

When a fixed density fluid is set in harmonic motion about a point or centre, the number of masses passing a fixed reference point per unit time can be observed as increased mass (or concentrated energy). Although the density (mass per volume) is constant, the mass velocity product yields the illusion of more mass per volume per time. Space is an incompressible fluid of varying energy density…in this author’s opinion!

The apparent absurdity of infinitely- increasing - mass and infinitely decreasing length as a mass approaches the light wave velocity is rationalized by realizing that space has inertia and as such offers inertial resistance to the moving mass. The energy of the moving mass is transmitted in front of it into the medium of space. The resulting curl of inertial resistance increases as negative momentum to the extent the mass is converted to radiant energy as it meets it’s own reflected mass in resistance. However - to the Star Trek fans, take heart… just as man broke the sound velocity limit (sound barrier) he can also break the light velocity limit (light barrier). By projecting a high-density polarized field of resonating electrons to spoil or warp the pressure wave of the inertial curl, the hyper-light craft can slip through the warp opening before it closes, - emitting the characteristics of a shock wave. Such a spoiler would be formed by using the electro-dynamic, high-energy-density electron waves which would normally proceed before the hyper-light craft, as a primary function of propulsion. When a similar function is executed by hypersonic aircraft, a sonic boom is formed as the as the inertial curl collapses on itself. In space, the light velocity equivalent to this sonic boom would be in the form of Cherenkov radiation which is emitted as a mass crosses the light-velocity threshold sending tangential light to the direction of travel.

Ether Existence Verified.

In 1913, the rotational version of the linear M - M experiment was successfully performed by G Sagnac (see p 65 - 67 of The Physical Foundations of General Relativity by D.W. Sciama, Heineman Educational Books Ltd., 48 Charles St., London WIX8AH) In 1925 Mitchellson and Gale used the spinning earth as their rotational analogue to the linear M - M experiment. It also showed successfully that the velocity of light sent in the direction of spin around the perimeter of a spinning disc (or of the surface of the earth) varied from the velocity of the light sent against the spin. (Refer diagram 3 Below).

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/Rotationalanalogue.jpg

The error of the M-M experiment is the test results are also valid for the case where there is an ether and it, too, is moving along with the same relative velocity and orbit as Earth maintains around the Sun. The Tea Cup Analogy can be used to explain the error.

If one stirs a cup of tea which has some small tea leaves floating on it's surface, (obviously before the invention of the ubiquitous tea bag!) one notices some of these tea leaves orbiting the vortex in the centre of the cup. The leaves closer to the centre travel faster than those father from the centre (both in linear and angular velocity).

Now, one must imagine oneself greatly reduced in size and sitting upon one of these orbiting leaves. If one were to put his hands over the edge of his tea leaf on any side, would he feel any tea moving past?…No! The reason is that the motion of the tea is the force that has caused the velocity of the leaf. One could not detect any motion, if both himself and the tea were travelling in the same direction and the same velocity. However, If one had arms long enough to stick a hand in the tea closer to either the centre or the rim of the cup - where the velocities were different to his own then he would feel tea moving faster or slower than himself (respectively).

Also, if one were to spin his tea leaf at the same time as it orbits about the centre, placing his hands into the tea immediately surrounding his leaf would show inertial resistance against the spin moment of his leaf.

Solar Tea Cup

In the preceding analogy, the centre of the spinning tea (or vortex centre) represented the sun, the leaf: the earth; The tea: The ether; and the riders hands: the light beams of the M - M test. In essence, what Mitchellson, Morley, Einstein and many other scientists have said is that the M - M test showed the velocity of light was not affected by the earth's orbital motion.

"Therefore" they have said, "we have one of two conclusions to draw";

1. ) The Earth is orbiting the sun and there is no ether, or,

2. ) The Earth is not orbiting the sun and there is an ether but since the earth is not moving through the ether, the ether "wind" cannot be detected. Obviously, this conclusion is negated by the Earth's observed helio centric orbit.

However, their reasoning should also have incorporated a THIRD option.

3) The Earth is orbiting the sun…and so is the ether; therefore, no ether wind could be detected in the orbital vector immediately in the vicinity of Earth.

In other words, the test results cannot prove or disprove the existence of an ether…only whether or not the earth is moving relative to the ether!

C Not Constant

Remember, in 1913, G Sagnac performed his version of the M-M experiment and corrected the inconclusive results which Mitchellson and Morley's test had obtained. In Sagnac's rotational analogue of the M-M test the velocity of light was shown to vary. Aalso in 1925, Mitchellson and Gale verified Sagnac's results with their own rotational analogue. Even more recently, similar verification has been made using a ring-laser system to detect the rotational velocity of the Earth, relative to the ether,

Relativists Discard Evidence

By the time the ether wind was proven to exist, Einstein's theories were already winning strong support on the merits of celestial observations which closely agreed with Einstein's predicted values. As a result the scientific community decided to explain the ether wind phenomenon as a result of Earth's spinning in it's own ether blanket which Earth was apparently dragging through space. No explanation was ever agreed upon as to the origin or extent of this ether blanket. It was simply a way to sweep a discrepancy under the carpet.

Einstein Admits Error.

In a biography written just before his death, Professor Einstein, is quoted as admitting he had a fundamental error in Relativity. It was he said, one which-when corrected-will explain how light - an obvious wave form - can be propagated across an apparently non-inertial space. Einstein also stated that the discovery of the solution to this error would probably be the result of some serendipitous discovery in the 1960's.

However, before he died, Einstein did manage to partially correct his error, With the help of the well known Dr Erwin Schrodinger, Dr Einstein, was able to construct a 'total theory' for existence. It was called the "Unified Field Theory". Although Dr Einstein was able to lay the basic framework before his death, it is reasonably certain that a more readily useable version of the "Unified Field Theory" was only completed by other physicists after Einstein had died.

One of the more promising contributions toward a useable unified field theory was offered by Dr Stanley Deser and Dr. Richard Arnowitt. They took the General Theory of Relativity which Einstein had devised and constructed a "bridge" or "creation tensor" to link the energy of nuclear fields with that of gravitational fields by co-variant matrices. The basic relationship of General Relativity which they used as a basis for their system is:

Ruv- .5guvR = 8(pi)kTuv

Ruv = Ricci's ten-component sub-Riemannian space, curvature tensor

guv = the metric tensor

R = the selected Ricci scalar components

K = a universal constant: proportional to Newton's gravitational constant

Pi = the usual constant 3.14etc

Tuv = the components (potentials) of the energy stress tensor

Although Deser and Arnowitt's proposed equations were quite difficult to work with, it is rumored that subsequent linear variations have been developed - allowing major leaps in science and technology to develop.

When the correctly formulated Unified Field Theory is finally released to the public it will be recognized quite easily; for it will have explained why the proton is exactly 1836 times the gravitational mass of an electron…why there is no neutral mu-meson of mass 200,…why (h) is a constant…and why hc/e2 is always equal to (137).”

Let me know if you've at least understood this far please!!

Cheers!

EireEngineer

08-26-2011, 05:55 AM

First of all Ian it is Eire not Erie. I am not some hick from western Pensylvania. Lol. Second, I wasn't engauging in ad hominem but I do think that it is odd that Mr Bearden only existst on the internet. Also, he never worked for the Pentaton that seems to be yet another piece of internet fiction.

What really bothers me is the inconsistancy of his ideas. At one point the machine supposedly extracts EM radiation from zero point energy. This is an impossibility as I understand it because the virtual particles are not in existence long enough to have a meaningful reaction with anything.

I will admit I had a hard time following what you were trying to say about constructing a gigantic delay line and somehow ectracting power from it. First of all the electrons in a conductor carrying current do not vibrate...they physically jump from atom to atom. Second, you would spend much more energy obtaining the materials for the device and instaling it than you would seem to recoup based on your explanation of the operation of it.

I am still trying to make sense of all the stuff you have posted which is a bit of a challenge. I go over peoples designs for a living and I have never seen one as seemingly confuses as all of this, so it is either complete Bs or genius. So no need to get so petty and defensive. And please do not post in dark blue. It is hard to read and infantile

Ian Moone

08-26-2011, 11:37 AM

And please do not post in dark blue. It is hard to read and infantileIts a copy from my notes and for some unknown reason the forum software won't let me highlight and change the color before posting it, from the original blue in my notes, so blue is what I get, whether I (or you) like it or not.

Although I may not be "an engineer", I am smart enough to drag my mouse cursor over it to highlight it where you get a nice dark blue print on white background - very easy to read - I guess that's the genius in me coming to the fore and not "the engineer" - huh? ;)

Infantile - really - see resorting to personal attacks (when unable to discredit the work).

Where have I seen that before?

The electrons jump from atom to atom all the way down the wire huh?

So when you turn the current off (open the circuit) where do all those atoms of copper in the wire get their electrons back from huh?

Must make the copper wire a once off use only item - since eventually ALL of the electrons would have to migrate to one end of the wire and then presumably into the battery?

Of course you have proof for this idea of the electrons leaving the atom and jumping to the next one and so on down the line? :p

Eire?...is that a place?

Texas versus Western Pennsylvania?...theres a difference?...the smirking chump Dubya - he came from Texas and was dumb as 2 house bricks - I wouldn't crow too loud about hailing from the lone star state, if I were you! :D

Not petty or defensive - just waiting after 3 pages for an intelligent question I guess - not like there isn't enough material for you to have maybe thought of ONE by now?.

In short I seem to be conversing with myself essentially..

I'm about to add another large cut paste from my notes about Einsteins error.

When I do - it will pose a question about re working Einsteins 21 equation proof for Special relativity - by taking out his use of the light speed universal constant C - (which as I have shown is anything but constant except for the fact it is infinite) and substituting Einsteins own Fine Structure Constant Alpha from his Nobel prize winning Paper of the photo electric effect in its place and then resolving the equation to solution.

I suspect that it will yield the much long sought after Unified Field Theorem that Einstein and others have been searching for.

I was kind of hoping that your mathematics was up to the task of resolving physics equations because mines admittedly weaker than i would like and its an area in which i struggle.

Also - as an engineer - I was hoping you'd be devoting some thought to experimental ways to test the hypothesis that there is as much energy within the domain of time as there is within mas and how we might extract some of that energy - in ways other than say Bearden's spatial circuits perhaps.

Bearden's a retired Lt Col - who was a war games planner for the pentagon before he retired - with his specialty in nuclear physics.

You'd need to show me unassailable proof that this isn't true I am afraid.

He works with some reasonably esteemed physicists etc...

That said - being good at physics doesn't necessarily require a degree.

I'm more of a theoretical physicist than an experimental physicist, hence seeking input into experimental design to test my hypothesis M = Δ T.

If I asked about the speed of sound - most would answer...

Source wiki-pedia

The speed of sound is the distance travelled during a unit of time by a sound wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_wave) propagating through an elastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_%28solid_mechanics%29) medium. In dry air (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air) at 20 °C (68 °F), the speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second (1,126 ft/s). This is 1,236 kilometres per hour (768 mph), or about one kilometer in three seconds or approximately one mile in five seconds.

And of course its correct....

http://wilk4.com/misc/f18.jpg

We are then confronted with this new phenomenon - long after we discovered the speed of sound.

The sound BARRIER

Prior to supersonic speed of bullets and air craft etc - the idea that anything could go faster than this arbitrary barrier was absurd.

I'm suggesting to you and anyone else reading along that, it is the same now with the speed of light.

Its just a limit velocity.

Its the light speed BARRIER

When we are able to travel faster than the speed of light, I suspect it is then we will realize that the light speed barrier is just that - the limit velocity that light speed can be measured at presently because any faster than light speed (warp 2 for eg) and to stationary observer as yet cannot discern the light photos moving away from them at warp 2.

That's why I say that speed of light is infinite - its the ONLY mathematical value for Einsteins E=MC^2 that is OBSERVABLE with current technology.

An infinite light speed - removes the paradoxical outcome from E=MC^2

That was Mitchellson Morleys (and later Sagnacs) mistake in not realizing that 3 x 10^8meters per second is only the OBSERVABLE limit velocity for light in a vacuum.

As stated I suspect that just like a sound wave collapsing in on itself as a jet passes thru at > mach 1, that local space time field curvature, when spoiled in this manner - can and will collapse in on itself if a strong enough beam of highly charged ionizing radiation is projected ahead of the space craft as it approaches warp 1 light speed barrier , sufficient to warp or spoil or collapse the curved space time continuum wave in on itself, just as the sound barrier does - allowing the craft to jump thru the light speed barrier from warp 1 to warp 2 and that the only OBSERVABLE effect of this jump to warp speed will be the emission at right angles to the direction of travel of Cerenkov radiation.

Star Trek Fans should have no trouble visualizing this idea as it has been portrayed countless times within the movies ad TV series, as the space ship Enterprise jumps from Impulse to Warp speed and emits a flash of ionizing Cerenkov radiation at right angles to the direction of travel as it "disappears" (becomes unobservable at to us the viewer traveling at < warp 1.

Anyway - where was I Oh yes...

If we try and re work Einsteins E=MC^2 special relativity proof 21 equation set by replacing his erroneous use of the universal constant C starting at equation 5 - and replace the universal constant C with his own fine stricture constant6 Alpha - we should well end up with the long sought after Grand Unification Theorem or "Unified Field Theorem" as it has been described at times.

Are you up for that challenge?

Anyone?

Cheers!

EireEngineer

08-26-2011, 12:17 PM

So...how about you google Eire before assuming too much? I am not from Texas and I was not crowing about the state. So do try not to be so snarky. I was just pointing out that you have been reading my name wrong.

It would seem that you are piling logical fallacy upon logical fallacy here. Just because the sound barrier turned out to be arbitrary does not mean that the "light barrier" will turn out to be breakable. Certainly it may turn out that we can go around it somehow but until that day it is still a barrier.

I do find it odd that even though hesupposedly has a patent on his device he refuses to send it out for independant verification. In your research do you know why this is? It would be interesting if a "good Will" would come along and solve all of the worlds energy problems, but its hard to believe that all of academia has missed this one.

EireEngineer

08-26-2011, 12:21 PM

One other problem I see with your theory that the spped of light is infinite and instantaneous is that it does not fit with observation. Use a laser to bounce a distinct signal off the mirror that was left on the moon and you will clearly see that it takes time for the signal to get there and back. Am I missing something in your explanation?

Ian Moone

08-26-2011, 01:03 PM

One other problem I see with your theory that the speed of light is infinite and instantaneous is that it does not fit with observation. Use a laser to bounce a distinct signal off the mirror that was left on the moon and you will clearly see that it takes time for the signal to get there and back. Am I missing something in your explanation?

I'm not `100% sure that I am saying that the speed of light is instantaneous, however - if I am right that it is infinite then yes it must travel fast enough in certain circumstances to appear instantaneous - so I see what you are saying.

With the moon mirror & laser - test - its important to realize that light speed of 3 x 10 6 8 meters per second is only a barrier in that it is the limit velocity "observable"....in our reality state travelling at less than warp 1 light speed on our earth bound planet orbiting the sun at a velocity less than warp 1

How could we get sound to travel faster than the sound barrier?

The photo depicts a air plane breaking the sound barrier - but how do we get sound waves to do that?

Example....

Lets say the F 18 jet fighter pilot is kickin back wearing his Ipod & listening to a little CCR, on his ear phones - as he accelerates thru the sound barrier progressively to mach 1 then mach 2 etc!.

What happens to those sound waves coming out of his ear phones inside his ears on the way to his ear drums, as he jumps thru the sound barrier to mach 2 or mach 3 etc - do they get left behind because they can't keep up with the speed that his planes traveling at?

Nope - because they are being propagated at the relative velocity of the plane he is traveling in! So he can listen to his tunes at mach 1 or mach 2 or mach 3 etc..

The sound waves are being propagated at the speed of sound BUT within a frame of reference of a enclosed space traveling supersonic.

I'm suggesting something similar for light photons.

That they might be able to only be observed from say the ground at 3 x 10 ^ 8 meters per second...BUT

Lets go back to our jet plane and imagine it's a warp speed capable space ship.

Lets say instead of the Pilots Ipod - he has his landing lights switched on and the photos are being propagated from the front of the space ship as it approaches light speed barrier and slips thru to warp speed!.

Does the ship out run its photons of light emitted at lightspeed from the landing lights?

Are the photons not being propagated at light speed from the light bulb, but the bulb id traveling at + Warp 1 or + Warp 2 etc?

So the net speed of those photos propagated at say warp 2 would be warp 2 + speed of light (3 x 10^8 meters per second?)

Same with the pilots Ipod, isn't the sound waves being propagated at above the sound barrier proof that sound can exceed the speed of sound if it is propagated at a speed above mach 1?

If the Ipod's a worry for you to rationalize - think about the pilots radio coms with home base - yes it uses radio waves which travel at a velocity different to sound waves BUT the pilot HEARS the communications via sound from his speakers after the radio waves are converted back to sound waves in his head phones.

Same principle applies.

IF

There is a parallel between the ear phones in the plane and the landing lights on the space ship, then is it not logical at least to assume that sound waves can exceed the speed of sound and lights peed can exceed the speed of light?

So the barriers - would not seem to be insurmountable?

And indeed it might just be possible for light speed to be infinite and all that your lazer and mirror - (and indeed Mitchellson / Morleys & Sagnacs linear and later rotational analogue lights peed experiments) ALl failed to account for the speed at which the light is propagated?

We can measure the sound barrier mach 1 speed of sound 100 different ways to christmas and always come up with the same limit barrier speed yet already we have sound exceeding that speed.

So far we are learning to measure light speed by what light we can see and it appears there is an OBSERVABLE limit to the speed of light based on our sub light speed frame of reference or relative velocity at which the light is being propagated!

Why are some forms of energy not obervable to humans and might they be observable to other species.

I.e X rays or radio waves etc.

We cant experience X rays with any of our 5 senses.

We cannot observe them directly - yet they are a wave form of energy as light is which we can observe?

Could it be that TIME also is a form of energy that we ONLY experience within our frame of reference at sub warp 1 frame of reference because our 5 senses don't allow us to experience it in any other way?

It comes back to this fundamental question about "what is time exactly"?.

I am still going with just another form of energy.

At east at this point it my best guess.

Back when Einstien formulated his special theory of relativity - the idea of different time zones on the planet wasn't something that anyone gave much thought too.

We have come a long way in our understanding of the universe - but i suspect that our inability to come to terms with time, and exactly what it is (energy) - has been holding us back.

I'll now get on with the back gr0und to Einsteins error in this next post.

At least my getting 'snarky' elicited a good question!

It was the genius Einstein himself who said worlds to the effect that the first steps to knowledge is asking the right questions.

Experimental design to test M = Δ T?

Cheers!

Ian Moone

08-26-2011, 01:16 PM

Quick one while I am at it.

I'm reminded of the much vaunted Rusian Physicist Leonid Lebedev's famous "dark sucker theorem" with regard to light!

Leonid postulated that "what we observe as light" is merely the absence of darkness.

Further he went on to postulate that light globes far from emitting light - were in fact "dark suckers"!

By turning on a switch to get a bulb to glow - we were in fact activating a dark sucker that sucked up all the dark and left us with the impression of absence of dark which we interpret as light.

his proof was that when light globes are full of dark - and can't absorbe any more dark - they stop working (blow out).

He further claims in support of his theorem - that - its the disposal of all of these full dark suckers in landfills, when the glass is broken and the dark gets out it is the cause of global warming!

He suggests that much of the missing dark mass in the universe is trapped within expired light bulbs (dark suckers) that haven't yet been broken but are buried in tact!.

Who here can disprove this theory?

An experimental design to test it?

Just wanted to show a little "outside the box thinking" to stimulate the mental processes. ;) :D :cool:

Cheers

Ian Moone

08-26-2011, 01:34 PM

“WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light,

Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment

In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature.

They sent light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000 miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but measurable percentage of the velocity of light. Their experiment was to show that a beam of light sent in the direction of the earth's travel should be the speed of light PLUS the speed of the earth. While a beam sent backwards should be the speed of light MINUS the speed of the earth.

No matter how many times they and many other scientists repeated that same experiment, it always failed.

The measured speed of light was always the same in any direction”.

• Authors Note – recall that the described slight variations in the two results – that were dismissed by Mitchellson & Morley as “statistically insignificant” – but which in the context of this discussion ARE significant in this authors opinion.

“For 20 years modern science was in a quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of physics wrong?

In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a solution - but he was wrong.

Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathematician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations.

His equations have become a gold-standard in science and are still accepted without changes or doubt.

While integrating his differential equations, Maxwell had to add the mathematically required integration constant. In math, the integration constant is usually called "C."

Maxwell's equations relate the static electric attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle or a coil of wire. To make the equations match the experimental measurements, the integration constant C had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second.

Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of light."

Today, science still calls the velocity of light C.

But not so.

It was only an “integration constant” to make Maxwell's equations match the measurements.

What the 19th century scientists, including Einstein, did not know nor have any experience with, was something which we now know as "time zones."

Time zones relate time to distance.

Even today most of Europe is in the same time zone. None of the 19th century European scientists had ever experienced the need to change their watches as they traveled from country to country.

Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet planes we need to adjust our clocks and watches to the new time zone at the rate of 1 hour for each 1,000 miles of travel.

This "virtual velocity" is not real, but simply the commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for calculating by how much we need to adjust our wrist watch as we travel.

This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones.

This "virtual velocity" or time conversion constant could be any arbitrary number, as long as we all accept the same number.

What is the "C" of time zones on Mars or the moon?

It's not the same as on earth.

A proper analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that there are actually

*four* possible explanations for the null or failed result.”

• Again Authors note – recall that I postulated 3 possible interpretations of the Mitchellson Morley experiment.

“Most scientists, including Einstein, who had no experience with time zones, only saw three possibilities.

Many scientists in 1905 could not, and some still do not, fully accept Einstein's choice among the three possibilities, - since his theory clearly violates our sense of reality, and Newton's laws of physics.

Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known paradoxes.

In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic, or theory, produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an incorrect premise.

That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M experiment falls directly from the result of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment itself.

That new fourth possibility is that the "virtual velocity" of light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to come from Maxwell's equations is 186,000 miles per second.

This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure our "actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350 miles per hour.

But we must add or subtract the "virtual velocity" of one hour for each 1,000 miles of travel, or the change in time zones, to make the answer match reality when we arrive at the destination.

That's not hard or difficult to do. And we often do the calculation in our head.

Add three hours to your watch as you travel the 3,000 miles from Los Angeles to New York.

This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light solves the dilemma of the repeatedly failed Michelson-Morley experiment.

If the "virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual velocity" or apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always appear to be the same, regardless of the motion of the light source.

Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is always the same as Infinity MINUS the velocity of the earth.

Infinity plus or minus any number is always infinity.

Thus the Michelson-Morley experiment was not a failure.

It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong!.

Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?

One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity.

It has become the basis for much of modern physics.

"Why is it that modern science for 100 years has believed a theory which is based on a simple math error?"

The answer is simple.

It was a mistake in the normal "peer review" process used by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.

That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness. But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error.

Why did no one catch the obvious error?

It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review.

Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien, later won Nobel Prizes themselves.

They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.

It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year.

Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers."

For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal.

It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists.

But not so.

Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought, would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts.

Not a good thing to do if you want a future career in physics.

Because of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change in editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim, "Look, the King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole scientific community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's invisible royal raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new Nobel Prize.

In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of them.

By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in so many advanced college textbooks, that most professors simply could not see the obvious math error. They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist. Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were, such as Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple math error can't exist.

For them, the error was invisible, even when it was pointed out to them.

And what was that Simple Math Error?

It's so simple even a child could figure it out.

It was a matter of re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Einstein had interpreted the negative results as meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which nothing can exceed.

That "fact" actually has never been proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by Einstein.

He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.

I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is both mathematically and logically incorrect.

The Lorentz Transform

The Transform seems to give the numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but mathematically it is false.

The Lorentz Transform uses the square root of the velocity squared divided by C squared.

Mathematically all square roots have two answers, the positive and the negative root.

Einstein, in his paper, seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily tossed out the negative root as not having any physical meaning.

But that is a mathematical and scientific "no-no" and means that the original premise of Einstein's Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect.

Under the Lorentz Transform an object will travel at V = 1,000 mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time.

That clearly is paradoxical.

[/COLOR]

This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of four is equal to two.

For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct. But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two AND minus two.

For the mathematically challenged, that is equivalent to Einstein claiming that two plus two is equal to five (2 + 2 = 5).

And that same mind-boggling math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on Relativity Theory.

But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it?

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.

For example:

(1) All dogs have four legs,

(2) All four legged animals are cats.

Therefore:

All dogs are cats, AND/OR All cats are dogs!

Which premise is false?

With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several others which were discovered later.

Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special Relativity Theory as false, even though it produced a paradoxical result - indicating a false logical premise.

The simple fact that Einstein himself published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.

Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz, who never accepted Relativity as a valid theory.

Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment.

He taught it to his students in advanced physics classes, including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer.

But it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or scientific answer.

Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must be false, for the reason I just mentioned.

He already knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly "lifted" out of his college class notes, had produced a false "Theory of Relativity."

Dr. Lorentz never accepted, nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."

For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision, only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it produced the obvious paradox.

Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review" his student's paper.

That Relativity paper would never have made it through a real and proper "peer review" process.

There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

It uses the simple physical constant called "alpha," the Fine Structure Constant.

It was the genius Einstein himself, who introduced the Fine Structure Constant in his first Nobel Prize winning paper about the Quantum nature of the photoelectric effect.

If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would have found that all the forces of nature;

the nuclear,

electric,

magnetic,

and

gravitational forces,

were all simply variations of the same force.

Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole.

This changes all observed measurements of time and distance.

The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."

The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."

The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.

Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumvirate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.

It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.

All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment problem are found in the definition of "alpha."

No paradoxical square root of squares Lorentz Transform is needed.

But 100 years ago, before the common use and experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of time in different locations around the world, nobody could see it.

All the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be described with a single equation.

It was the "Unified Field Theory" which Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long sought, but somehow had eluded them. Instead, for 100 years, a simple editorial mistake in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science astray.”

Cheers - apols for the red text - for some reason this forum won't let me change it to white! I've just edited every lines html color script from red to white manually lets see if that fixes it?

EireEngineer

08-27-2011, 04:35 AM

Simple way to prove that the dark sucker idea is false: look at the operation of a phototransistor. The photoelectric effect would not work if that idea were the case.

Ian Moone

08-27-2011, 04:50 AM

Ok so here it is,

Einsteins 21 equation proof for special relativity.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/SpeedofLight1.jpg

Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space.

It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another.

This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c)

And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b):

Assuming:

c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer

S = distance GA = GB

T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG)

T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG)

T = .5 t T2

V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer.

Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to:

(Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1

Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2

By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12

Hence:

(Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5

Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains:

(Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5

rearranging:

(Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5

Substituting: t = .5t2

Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5

Or:

(Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5

by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains:

(Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s

which reduces to:

(Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees:

(Eq 6.) ve = 0

Hence:

(Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1

Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each successive try of the linear M - M test has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord….

Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether.

Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows:

Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

(to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).

Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,…

Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer

Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider

Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it

Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it

Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:

(Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2

So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension

(Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1

or,…

(Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2

then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

which reduces to:

(Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type:

(Eq. 12) (1- b) -a

Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:

(Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc

where b2 is less than 1

So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2

One obtains:

(Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc…

For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):

(Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2

so (Eq. 11) becomes:

(Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c

developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2

(Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2

remembering energy (E) is represented by:

(Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c)

One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving…

(Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v)

Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives:

(Eq. 20) M = E/ c2

Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):

(Eq. 21) E = m c2

(Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)

Next we have Einsteins Fine Structure Constant Alpha.

Alpha = E^2/hc

where

The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."

The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."

The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.

Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumvirate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.

It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.

So

Starting at Equation 5 where velocity of light C^ 2 is introduced

(Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

and

Substituting Alpha for C

We get

(Eq 5) t1/t2 = (1-ve2/Alpha^2) - .5

Fleshing out Alpha squared

we get

(Eq 6) t1/t2 = (1-ve2/E^2/hc x E^2/hc) - .5

Resolve from here.

Cheers!

EireEngineer

08-27-2011, 06:01 AM

Out of curiosity where are you copying all that from?

Ian Moone

08-27-2011, 12:14 PM

From my research notes.

Some of it I actually type in as I think of it.

You know - like a normal post you think of what you want to say - you type it and hit enter.

Where have I got my research notes from?

From desk top research on the internet, from email exchanges with physicists like T Bearden, and in the case of M = Δ T, from my own workings - as strange as that might sound.

I wanted to get onto Nassim Harrameins work after this...

I thought it might be instructional to first however get this unified field theory work completed first as way (or tool) to use to better / easier understand his theory of just 2 fundamental forces in the universe in balance with each other.

The expansive (spherical) force.

&

The contractive (Fractal tetrahedral) force -

Each of which indicate a system in equilibrium.

Lets not jump ahead to that just yet, lets work with what we have, and solve the unified field first!

Cheers!

EireEngineer

08-27-2011, 12:39 PM

If m= DeltaT then wouldnt that mean that the value of any mass would always be increasing?

Ian Moone

08-27-2011, 12:54 PM

Thats a most excellent question.

The rate of change in time appears to be constant (to me).

Remember that we are talking about the potential energy of mass and time and the relationship between the two values.

Just as the amount of energy within mass remains constant, I would submit that the amount of energy represented by the rate of change in Time remains constant - supporting my theory that M = Delta T in energy terms.

Hope that makes sense.

Again a most excellent question.

This has got those cogs working in your brain hasn't it? - Sitting here I can almost see them whirring along - to me that's a beautiful thing - to see someone thinking (and hopefully learning something new)!

Cheers!

Ian Moone

09-03-2011, 04:20 PM

Damn if it hasn't gone awful quiet in here since those unified field equations went up!

Whats happened?

Every ones busy with the pencil n paper working it all out?

Crikey don't be shy lets do it right here on the forum for all to see?

Can't be too hard just a little math really.

Come on all you 'sky-ent-teests' lets hear it! ;)

Cheers

EireEngineer

09-03-2011, 05:49 PM

Sorry, correlation does not mean causation. We were really the only two in the conversation, and I have been a bit preoccupied with getting ready to move back next week. Sorry.:D

Ian Moone

09-04-2011, 05:38 AM

Moving back?

Moving back to the future?

Marty & the professor would be so proud of you! Let me guess, a U haul on the back of the Delorean? :D ;)

Cheers

EireEngineer

09-04-2011, 07:21 AM

Lol one of my favorite movies. No, I just completed my contract here in Dallas early and quite frankly I am sick of the heat.

Ian Moone

09-11-2011, 09:00 PM

As to be expected the Russians Leonid Lebedev and his Ruski scientist mates are all over this like white on rice.

Source: Russian Scientist Builds Real Time Machine - coupmedia.org (http://coupmedia.org/astro-physics/russian-scientist-builds-real-time-machine-0909)

Russian Scientist Builds Real Time Machine (http://coupmedia.org/astro-physics/russian-scientist-builds-real-time-machine-0909)

Written by Truth Advocate Friday, 09 September 2011 12:19 What person hasn't dreamed at least once of returning briefly to a favorite era in the past or seeing a real glimpse of a fantastic future hundreds, even thousands of years from today? Now, released documents support a Russian Scientist Building a Real Time Machine. Despite a spate of articles claiming that travel to the past is flatly impossible, physicists like Stephen Hawking and others say it's not.

http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005477/images/chernobrov.jpg

Vadim Alexandrovich Chernobrov

And now an engineer named Vadim Alexandrovich Chernobrov claims to have accomplished what others say cannot be done—he's built a working time machine. At least that is his claim. And he says he's tested it and it works. But there are some limitations with its capabilities.

Russian Scientist Builds Real Time Machine (http://coupmedia.org/astro-physics/russian-scientist-builds-real-time-machine-0909)

Potential dangers

Chernobrov cautions about potential dangers. "Those who attempt to return to the past to keep certain historical events from occurring—for example, the collapse of the Soviet Union—would fail in the attempt and would run the risk of not being able to return to the future."

The engineer's amazing time machine is a metal sphere that looks much like some of the early Soviet and American satellite spacecraft. Outside it has a diameter of two meters and inside is housed a meter wide space that can house a time-traveling chrononaut.

The device achieves travel through time, according to its inventor, by utilizing strong magnetic fields that resonate about the capsule and affect the natural flow of time and causality by literally increasing or slowing the flow of time.

During experiments, Chernobrov has shown that very precise chronometers, synchronized before the field is energized, experience a significant divergence in time after one has been placed inside the time machine while the other is kept far from the energized field as a control.

The chronometers revealed time is definitely warped within the machine's magnetic fields.

http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005477/images/Time%20machine.jpg

Early schematic of time machine

First time machine made at Moscow Aircraft University

According to an article translated by Lena Ksandinova, "the first Russian time machine was constructed by the scientists of Moscow Aircraft University.

"To understand, how the machine impacts live creatures, Vadim Chernobrov, an experiment administrator, put cockroaches inside. The insects died. They modernized the machine and put mice inside. The effect on them was the same. Scientists realized what the cause of death was: on different parts of the body time ran with a different speed. They fixed the machine once again and put a puppy called 'Lunar Rover' inside. He was inside for 108 minutes. The puppy survived, but behaved like he was having rabies.

"Then experiments on people came. Nine scientists, among which was Chernobrov, took part in it. Instruments inside the machine recorded a 3 percent time shift, and changes in machine size. Experiment participants, however, felt nothing but moderate arrhythmia and colored circles in eyes."

The experiment with people was the most dangerous. Some scientists familiar with the experiment condemned it as reckless.

"We came to conclusion that time is 3–dimensional," explained Chernobrov. "So in fact we can move in time backwards and forwards."

http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005477/images/frolovchern.jpg

Chernobrov with associate and small model

Details on larger model

As Ksandinova reported, a larger model of the time machine was built to carry humans. It was constructed in a remote forest in Russia's Volgograd Region. While the device had a low power capacity it still affected the flow of time by three per cent; that temporal permutation was measured with symmetrical crystal oscillators.

http://beforeitsnews.com/ckfinder/userfiles/0000000000005477/images/cher1i.jpg

Artist representation of time experiment

At first, the researchers spent periods of five, ten and later, twenty minutes in the field of the time machine; the longest stay recorded lasted about half an hour. Chernobrov reported the volunteers felt as if they had shifted into a different world: "they felt life here and there at the same time as if some space was unfolding."

Is time being manipulated?

If time travel has, does or ever will exist then by its very nature time travel always exists. "What is troubling is that we have no way of knowing that they aren't already doing it. For those of us in the daily stream of world events, a shift in history might wipe out thousands of people and change entire governments. But for us, the change would go into our memory of events as they happened during our lives. That good friend we went bowling with last night might disappear before the next morning and we would not notice his loss. By the time we awake, the person never existed."

Notes from a pioneer

In his notes on the early time machine experiments, Chernobrov wrote:

In experiments on deceleration and acceleration of a physical Time in small closed volume conducted since 1988, among other things the effect electromagnetic of fields on space-time continuum was checked.

The experimental system for such effect represented set of electromagnets, are connected among themselves in serial and in parallel and installed on the globe-shaped surfaces. In various experiments from 3 up to 5 such surfaces, Electromagnetic Working Surfaces (EWS) was used. All EWS layers of various diameters were installed consistently in each other.

The maximum EWS size was about meter, the minimum EWS diameter (internal) was equal to 115 mm, that has appeared sufficient to place inside of EWS the gauges of the control and experimental animals (various kinds insect and laboratory mouses), to investigate the effects of converging spherical electromagnetic of waves.

Presumably you can reach Vadim Chernobrov through his website at chernobrov.narod.ru/ (http://chernobrov.narod.ru/)

Chernobrov's complete time machine report, Experiments on the change of the direction and rate of time motion, can be found

time travel (http://alexfrolov.narod.ru/ch-paper.htm)

Tis all about magnetic fields at the end of the day.

Isn't that just the type of energy our earth spin (gravity) and heliocentric orbit of the sun (time) are generated?

And thus it is by countering those little understood magnetic energy's with their opposite that cancels out time and indeed even reverses it - just as it is possible to cancel out or reverse gravity's effect with magnetic fields also.!

At the end f the day it is just magnetic form of energy, that we need to understand to master.

Cheers

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 11:18 AM

A lot of people get confused by magnetism. There are many so called perpetual motion machines for example, that utilize magnets but that in actuality are deriving the energy by depleting the magnets themselves. This is all fin and dandy if you happen to sit on a rare earth magnet mine, but it isnt perpetual motion.

Now, one problem I have with this is that we already generate magnetic fields many, many times stronger than anything his little machine would be capable of, and we do not notice any time dilation effects with them. Also, gravity is a force completely independent of magnetism, so no, it is not the force that causes the earths spin or revolution about the sun.

th3kid

09-17-2011, 02:43 PM

:eek:time is man made, it is irelavent. dont let time run your life

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 02:46 PM

What does that mean?

th3kid

09-17-2011, 02:52 PM

it means time was invented by human beings the egyptians to b specific and it shud be irrelavent to all things true:eek:

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 03:09 PM

it means time was invented by human beings the egyptians to b specific and it shud be irrelavent to all things true:eek:

FUnny, then why were people in paleolithic times measuring time well before the Egyptians. Perhaps the concept of time was first invented by man, but it is a core principle of the universe.

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 03:21 PM

Yes I have, and no, I dont see your point. Without time there is no causality, which means that it is a characteristic of the universe.

Ian Moone

09-17-2011, 05:10 PM

A lot of people get confused by magnetism.

On this much we agree!.

That said - I'd be interested in your thoughts about this possibility then.

Recall Bearden's details about the source charge, and my laymans explanation with the long copper wire and electrons and time taken to excite them all?.

What of magnetism is also like this.....thus far we have only discovered HALF of the phenomenon..

Now - next question - have you at all attempted to resolve the unified field equation I set 2 pages back?

Lastly......

Go to Utube and type in nassim harramein...and watch his 2 x 4 hour videos.

Please make the time - it's important.

Cheers!

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 05:59 PM

While magnetism has never been unified with gravity, simple observation tells us that magnetism alone has no effect of the passage of time. We now can measure the passage of time in incredibly small increments, and in fact have genernerated magnetice feilds far grater than that and noticed no time effect would tend to mean that even if there is a connection, it must be incredibly small.

I did have one thought about your infinite speed of light idea. While we know that the speed of light photons is not infinite, for massive objects it effectively is because you simply cannot attain that velocity. So I apologise because you are quite correct in that regard.

th3kid

09-17-2011, 09:05 PM

:)philosophy at its finest im open to ians ideas about time and can agree with them but i have to say engineer your concept on time is str8 up confusing man

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 09:07 PM

Sorry you dont understand elementary physics.

th3kid

09-17-2011, 09:17 PM

I am a 16 year old male who attends a bording school name athol murray notre dame and i am the one who is sorry for my grade 11 education i might not be as educated as you or ian but i still have a decent understanding of whats really going on in this world and to me that is more important. i thought that by my user name people whud understand i was younger.

yours trufawlly the kid

im from saskatchewana canada two btw and if you dont know were that is look it up

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 09:24 PM

Well, if you have any specific questions, you can always ask. Ian and I would be more then happy to entertain them, even if we cant answer them. And yes, I am quite familiar with Canada. In fact, I helped install Calgary's light rail system.

If I may make a suggestion...install Firefox if you can.

th3kid

09-17-2011, 09:29 PM

first off what is canadas light rail system and second what is so great about firefox and why do all my teachers make me use firefox instead of internet.

yours trufawlly the kid

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 09:36 PM

11th Grade? I said Calgary's, not Canada's, and a light rail system is a mass transit system that uses small, generally electrically powered, trains to move passengers at high speed.

Firefox has a real time, built in spell checker that makes things much more readable. I know, my spelling skills are atrocious lol. However, after several years of using it I hardly ever misspell anything because I have been corrected so many times.

th3kid

09-17-2011, 09:48 PM

so i see youve noticed my bad spelling well that is intentional i misspell words after seeing the movie "the zodiac" not that i want to imitate or am obsesed with a killer or anything i just like the concept of it and sorry i missread calgary lol but if only calgarys football team was as gud as there trainsystem stampeders<roughriders (btw i watch a lot of movies maybe too many movies...) oh yea and we dont have transportation trains in our province of canada we just have trains that deliver grain and oil.

yours trufawlly the kid.

:)

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 09:50 PM

Ah. It just makes reading difficult for me, but I will adapt. Keep questioning. If only more youth were interested in something besides video games.

th3kid

09-17-2011, 10:01 PM

yeh tell me about it all kids my age care about is sports, facebook, parties, and getting in sum skanks pants. btw you ever here of a author named george orwell?

EireEngineer

09-17-2011, 10:02 PM

Of course, both Animal Farm and 1984 on on my read once a year list. So what part of what I said didnt make sense? And never underestimate the fun value of a good skank lol.

Ian Moone

09-18-2011, 01:31 PM

Kid - I'm no more educated than you.

In fact year 11 was the best 2 years of my life! :o

I am a little more experienced is all.

I have a soft spot for canukistanians, with some good friends who live in BC.

Like E Engineer I think its great that a young guys at least interested in something other than World of Warcraft. :D

Here's a thought, if light is made up of Photons - whats dark made up of? (anti-photons)?

It's a bit like Leonid Lebedevs dark sucker theorem that says light globes do not emit light, they suck dark and light is just what we observe as the absence of dark.

When the dark sucker is full it blows out and stops working and you need to replace it with another dark sucker in order to perceive as light the absence of dark again.

It's all the dark suckers disposed of in landfills that are causing global warming.

This explains the missing dark matter of the universe.

Of course it is tongue in cheek BUT it shows that sometimes things might not always be what we think them to be, there could be a different explanation (ergo dark suckers) which could be equally correct perhaps.

Back to light photons - and thus dark photons.

How can there be one without the other?.

In a system in equilibrium there must be balance - if we have light we must also have dark, in equal amounts.

If light is comprised of photons (and behaves like a wave form) then mustn't dark be composed of anti-photons and mustn't its wave form be the antithesis (inverse) of the light wave form so that both waves when they interact cancel each other out?

Do not light and dark cancel each other out?

Why would there be light throughout the universe yet the dark side of the moon exists (absence of light)?

All good questions and food for thought!

Try disproving Einsteins special relativity e=mc^2 for your year 11 physics teacher by using both the positive & negative root speed of light to get a positive result and show him that any flawed supposition always results in a paradoxical outcome and quote the twin paradox for einsteins e=mc^2

Use the cats and dogs example...

All dogs have 4 legs

All 4 legged animals are Cats

Therefore all cats are dogs

or

All dogs are cats!

One of the two original suppositions must be wrong (the second one all 4 legged animals are cats)!

So it is with Einsteins e =MC^2 where light traveling at 1000 mph east and also traveling at 1000 mph West at the same time, satisfy his e=mc^2 equation and this is clearly as non sensible as the cats and dogs example!.

The Paradoxical outcome of commencing with a false premise in e=MC^2 is the so called twin paradox.

Then tell him that Einstein won his nobel prize for his peer reviewed poto-electric effect paper and that his special relativity paper was never peer reviewed.

In fact Einsteins own professor Dr Hendrik Lorentz always referred to einsteins special relativity theorem in mock derision as Einsteins theorem.

Clearly if Professor Lorentze had got to peer review his student einstens special relativity paper it would never have been published.

Doing so could get you a trip to the principles office but it might be worth it to show your an independent thinker who doesn't accept the status quo to go along just to get along.

Likely your year 11 physics teachers head will explode.

Eiree engineer the grand unification theorem equations resolution?.

Cheers!

EireEngineer

09-18-2011, 05:40 PM

You do realize there Ian that what you posted was actually about 20 logical fallacies in a row?:D

I have been busy house hunting and working, so no I havent done much work on them lately. However, I also have had to reformat my comp since then and I do not feel like sorting through you 2000 walls of text to try to figure out which set you were talking about, so would you mind reposting it in a concise manner? Im still skeptical because much of what I have seen here isnt mathematically correct it seems. Even your usage of Delta in your signature is off. But now that I have the tools and the time lets take a look at it again.

th3kid

09-18-2011, 07:48 PM

ok guys first off i dont understand either of your signitures they seem to make no sense to me mine makes sense of course but is not originally from my brain but from some other great philosopher. second i dont take physics untill next semester which is after Christ- mass i am so willing to go at my teacher about this matter but first i would need to hear what erie engineer has to say about it. thirdly LMFAO at erries comment about sometimes a skank can b fun cus they totally can. also i recomend you both listen to the song end of days by vinnie paz, his first album was good and he shud of stuck with it.

yours trufawlly the kiid

EireEngineer

09-18-2011, 08:50 PM

My signature is just a science pun. There is an expression that says if you arent part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. However, solution can also mean when you dissolve something in a liquid, like when you make kool aid. A precipitate is something that does not stay in a solution, like if you try to put way too much sugar in the koolaid a bunch will settle at the bottom of the jug. So...if you arent part of the solution...you are part of the precipitate. Get it?

th3kid

09-19-2011, 10:47 AM

yea makes sense now and i sort of kinda understand ians because he just posted a bunch of stuff about how einsteins theory is wrong so im guessing its about that. but why does he say madness takes its toll please have exact change wtf does that mean...

if light is made of protons it is considered something and if darkness isnt then wudnt darkness be nothing but then again what is nothing... darkness has to be something doesnt it. sorry i dont accept that something is nothing cus that is not an answer.

Ian Moone

09-19-2011, 12:15 PM

Man Humor loses its effect when you have to explain it. :rolleyes:

why does he say madness takes its toll please have exact change wtf does that mean...

Theres an old saying that "Madness takes its toll" (on your mind i guess).

But the world Toll has a second meaning - when you drive on a private road or bridge they make you stop and pay a toll at a toll both for the privilege of using a private road or bridge and the fees go to paying off the road or bridge!

Often these Toll Booths have a bucket that you wind down your window and throw the coins into as you crawl past - and the boom gate lifts when you do to allow you to pass - they often don't have an toll booth attendant as such to give you change from say a paper monetary note for example, so there are signs up that say = please have exact change handy (to throw into the bucket).

Combining the two - you get the two sayings..

Madness takes its toll (and the second part requesting you to have exact change handy) suggests that you must be mad therefore should pay the toll fee with exact change! :D

Shall we try some more sayings for you?

There are only 10 types of people in this world;-

Those who understand Binary code and those who don't! ;)

Ones and Zeros are the only numerals used in binary computer code - so the number 10 is really interpeted as just two numbers one and a zero.

People who don't understand Binary computer coding read it as a ten and are looking for 8 more types of people in this world! :D

Shall I go on?

You get the first email yet? I'll send the next 10 files if you did!

Cheers!

th3kid

09-19-2011, 01:54 PM

yes i did get the first email i have symphathy for engie who is still skeptical on 9/11 oh well he is walking on eggshells not listening to us.

yours trufawlly the kid. "the primary manifestation of time is change" Ian moone.

EireEngineer

09-19-2011, 02:50 PM

I have never accepted the argument from symetry. Not everything has to have an exact opposite. Darkness is simply an absense of light just in the same way an empty room is an absence of furniture. Light has demonstrable interactions with matter where darkness does not. This is why I disagree with the dark sucker idea.

th3kid

09-19-2011, 09:21 PM

i strongly recomend the movie v for vendetta it will do you good youd b surprised at how much you can learn from movies and books and a lot of candadian stereo types arnt true we live lives quite similar to americans the only real difference is that americans are stronger and fight for freedom wether canadians just have the americans fighting for there freedom and we canadians arnt good fighters but were really good at sitting around a camp fire singing kum bai ah anyway movies i recomend to people they usually love so take my word

yours trufawlly the kid

EireEngineer

09-19-2011, 09:25 PM

Seen it and love the dialog. It was a great graphic novel too. Why did you ask me about 1984 earlier? I have two recommendations as well. "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley and "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

EireEngineer

09-19-2011, 09:28 PM

By the way, if you dont think Canadians are good fighters you should really read about the Canadians involvement in WW2. They were badasses.

th3kid

09-20-2011, 02:01 PM

i tried reading brave new world when i was young but i didnt understand it but i think im old enough now so i will check my school library i will also check for the other one you said but i only read one book at a time unlike my mother who has like 10 books on the go. and i also found the graphic novel to be better than the movie which doesnt really happen .usually i like the movie version of a book or graphic novel better but in the case not so much.

anyone else upset of the fact that the movie watchmen didnt have a giant alien squid like it was supposed to in the graphic novel

Ian Moone

10-08-2011, 01:04 PM

Back on Topic for a change!

Here it is again!

Ok so here it is,

Einsteins 21 equation proof for special relativity.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a70/troutylow/SpeedofLight1.jpg

Diagram One above is a schematic of the M-M test. It was conducted on the basis that if an ether existed, the earth would be moving "through" it. Hence there would be a relative velocity between earth and the fluid of space.

It was reasoned that by splitting a beam of light (F) into two parts; sending one out and back in line with the direction of the earth's orbital path, (to mirror A) from Half silvered mirror (G) and glass plate (D); and recombining the two beams in the interferometer (E) one should be able to detect a shift in the phases of the two beams relative to one another.

This shift could accurately be predicted by knowing the velocity of light (c)

And the velocity (Ve) of Earth through orbital space. Their reasoning was as follows (refer diag. 1, diag. 2a, daig, 2b):

Assuming:

c2 = a2 + b2C = velocity of light = velocity from G to B by fixed extra-terrestrial observer

S = distance GA = GB

T1 = go-return time in-line (GA - AG)

T2 = go return time at right angles (GB-BG)

T = .5 t T2

V1= apparent velocity from g to B by earth observer.

Then the time (T1) is determined by:[s/(c-ve)] + [s/(c+ve))] = t1 which reduces to:

(Eq.1) 2sc/(c2 - ve2) = t1

Also, the time (t2) is determined by first solving for (v1) in terms of ( c ) and (Ve) using the Pythagorean Theorem (c2 = a2 + b2)…. Or, in this instance: (G to B)2 = (G to M)2 + (M to B)2

By substitution, c2 = ve2 + v12

Hence:

(Eq.2) v1= (c2 - ve2).5

Now, solving for the time (t) - which is the same over GM, GB, MB - of the GB trip by substituting s/t = v1 in (Eq.2) , one obtains:

(Eq.3) s/t = (c2 - ve2).5

rearranging:

(Eq.3) t = s/(c2 - ve2).5

Substituting: t = .5t2

Gives: t2/2=s/(c2 - ve2).5

Or:

(Eq.4) t2= 2s /(c2 - ve2).5

by comparing the ratio of the in-line go-return time (t1) to the right angle go-return time (t2) one obtains:

(Eq.5) t1/t2 =[2sc / (c2 - ve2).5 / 2s

which reduces to:

(Eq. 5.) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Now then, if the light source is at rest with respect to the other, one sees:

(Eq 6.) ve = 0

Hence:

(Eq 7.) t1/t2 = 1/ (1 -0).5 = 1/1 = 1

Such a ratio as (Eq. 7) shows is exactly what each successive try of the linear M - M test has obtained…. (notice: Linear not angular!). Lorentz and Fitzgerald knew there had to be an ether; so they developed their well known transforms - an act which was in essence a way of saying, there has to be an ether…we'll adjust our observed results by a factor which will bring our hypothetical expectations and our test results into accord….

Their whole transform was based on the existence of ether space! Their transform, in essence said that length shortened, mass flattened, and time dilated as a body moved through the ether.

Einstein came along in 1905 saying the Mitchellson Morley test showed the velocity of light to be a universal constant to the observer. Seizing upon this and the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms, Einstein was able to formulate his Special Relativity which resulted in the now famous E = Mc2 …the derivation of which follows:

Starting with (Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform factor for (Eq.5) becomes (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

(to bring t2= t1) giving t1/t2 an observed value of (1).

Assuming Lorentz and Fitzgerald's supposition to be correct one should look at mass-in-motion as the observer on the mass see's it versus mass-in-motion as the universal observer sees it,…

Let m1 = mass as it appears to the riding observer

Let v1 = velocity as detected by rider

Let m2 = mass as universal observer sees it

Let v2 = velocity as universal observer sees it

Then it follows (from Lorentz and Fitzgerald) that:

(Eq. 9) m1 v1 not = m2 v2

So - to equate the two products. Lorentz and Fitzgerald devised their transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 which would bring m1 v1 = m2 v2 to either observer,… yielding the following extension

(Eq. 10) m1s1/t1 Not = m2s2/t1

or,…

(Eq. 10) m1s1 Not = m2s2

then, by substitution of the transform factor s2 = s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5(assuming time is reference) into (Eq. 10.) one obtains: m1s1 = m2s1(1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

which reduces to:

(Eq. 11) m1 = m2 (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

To re evaluate this relative change in mass, one should investigate the expanded form of the transform factor (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5 (which transforms t1=t2) It is of the general binomial type:

(Eq. 12) (1- b) -a

Hence it can be expressed as the sum of an infinite series:

(Eq. 13) 1 + ab = a(a+1)b2 /2! + a(a+1)(a+2)b3/3! + …etc

where b2 is less than 1

So - setting a = .5 and b = ve2 / c2

One obtains:

(Eq. 14) 1 + (ve2 / 2c2) + (3v4/8c4) + (5v6/16c6) + etc…

For low velocities in the order of .25c and less than the evaluation of (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

Is closely approximated by, the first two elements of (Eq. 14):

(Eq. 15) (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5= 1+ve2 /2c2

so (Eq. 11) becomes:

(Eq. 16.) m2= m1(1+ ve2 / c2)…where ve less than .25c

developing further,… m2= m1 + m1 ve2 /2c2

(Eq. 17) m2 - m1 = .5 m1 ve2 /2c2

remembering energy (E) is represented by:

(Eq. 18) E = .5mv2…( where ve less than .25c)

One can substitute (Eq. 18) into (Eq. 17) giving…

(Eq. 19) m2 - m1 = E/c2…(assuming ve = v)

Representing the change in mass (m2 - m1) by M gives:

(Eq. 20) M = E/ c2

Or, in the more familiar form using the general (m) for (M):

(Eq. 21) E = m c2

(Note, however, that (Eq. 14) should be used for the greatest accuracy - especially where ve is greater than .25c)

Next we have Einsteins Fine Structure Constant Alpha.

Alpha = E^2/hc

where

The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."

The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."

The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.

Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumvirate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.

It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.

So

Starting at Equation 5 where velocity of light C^ 2 is introduced

(Eq.5) t1/t2 = (1- ve2 / c2 ) - .5

and

Substituting Alpha for C

We get

(Eq 5) t1/t2 = (1-ve2/Alpha^2) - .5

Fleshing out Alpha squared

we get

(Eq 6) t1/t2 = (1-ve2/E^2/hc x E^2/hc) - .5

Resolve from here.

Cheers!

Ian Moone

12-03-2011, 01:23 PM

After some months with zero reply - it would seem that maybe the math is a little too tough? ;)

Ohh - well maybe mankinds not yet ready for the grand unification theorem - unifying gravity with special relativity, and having the theory of everything! :eek:

Maybe when mankind is ready some bright spark will do the requisite math.

I believe this will happen in 2012 - likely some time around 21 Dec in fact and from that point forth mankind shall be as time lords, immortal.

Just more proof that you cannot push the river, nor hasten the harvest by tugging on the shoots at night.

In time to come - (infinitime) which begins AD 21 Dec 2012 (as all good time travelers know) there will be no limits...

Sadly, its now time that I go forward - back to whence I came - before Armageddon should overtake me. This experiment is ample proof, that the space time thought continuum cannot be warped.

The kettle boils - when the water molecules are ready (have sufficient energy) to change form.

Humanity is not yet ready to change form.

It would be nice to prevent Armageddon and jump straight to warp speed and spare mankind the suffering of Armageddon - but the grand architect of the universe' will be done - here on earth, as it is in heaven.

Shalom & farewell.

EireEngineer

12-23-2011, 08:05 PM

Sorry, bought a new computer and lost my password. Plus the lab is keeping me busy these days.:rolleyes:

Tiresias

01-07-2012, 12:27 PM

Hello Ian, have been reading your and EireEngineer's discussion and find it both interesting and enjoyable. I have a couple of comments concerning, 1. your reference to the Great year of 26000 years. This is is the apparent movement of the sun through the background of stars organized as constellations. The ones that the sun passes through are called the zodiac and this is due to the slow wobble of the earth over that 26000 years.

I believe that suns path around the galaxy is considerably longer. The sun is located about 30,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way. So the diameter of the orbit is 60,000 years, which means the distance traveled for one orbit is about 188,400 light years. From what I remember, the sun's motion about the galactic center is at about 120,000 mph. I haven't done the math, but I believe a full revolution takes about 2.5 million years. However, I do not believe that this will affect the theoretical results you reached.

The second comment is about concept of the MEG. You proposed a battery connected pole to pole, with a switch inserted. The electrical flow will be from positive to negative, and here I have to agree with EireEngineer, when the switch closes the circuit, the potential will rise at the positive pole moving an electron into the conductor. This will start the electron flow. As the conductor is already full of atoms with electrons, when the first electron enters the conductor they all bump at once and an electron exits the conductor at the negative pole. It's like small pipe full of ball bearings, if you push one in, one will exit at the same time. They all bump at once. As to the rest of the theory I cant say.

What I am interested in is monetary systems and banking and how the elite have been using them for years to extract wealth from the people.

I haven't seen these topics on this site, so when I figure where to start the discussion please reply with your thoughts on the issue.

Thanks for letting bend your ear.

Ian Moone

01-08-2012, 10:07 AM

I believe that suns path around the galaxy is considerably longer.

Your correct about the difference between equinoctial precession great year of ~25730 years or so, and the orbit of the sun about the ecliptic plane of the milky way galaxy. Sorry if my explanation created an impression otherwise.

However, I do not believe that this will affect the theoretical results you reached.

Your correct it won't affect the math - which stands on its own.

It's like small pipe full of ball bearings, if you push one in, one will exit at the same time. They all bump at once

In fact electrical flow along a wire does take a period of time depending on the conductivity of the wire. Its slower for example in a semi conductor and doesn't occur at all in insulators.

In superconductor's the speed (velocity for Eirie Engineer) is thought to approach that of the speed of light!

All the same there is a time delay so unlike the ball bearings in a pipe explanation - "the pushing one ball bearing in at one end and thus instantaneously forcing one out at the other end" without the passage of time, doesn't hold with observed experimental results.

This is part of the problem of our fundamental understanding of sun atomic particles behavior.

In a biography written just before his death, Professor Einstein, is quoted as admitting he had a fundamental error in Relativity. It was he said, one which-when corrected-will explain how light - an obvious wave form - can be propagated across an apparently non-inertial space.

Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of infinity.

The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.

It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally red-shifted by a nucleon-sized black hole.

This changes all observed measurements of time and distance.

The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."

The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning distance to time, of the electron is "c."

The relationship of mass/energy to time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h."

The relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the "alpha" definition.

Attempting to produce a complete system of universal science based only on the triumvirate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has proven to be insufficient and incomplete.

It turns out that a minimum of four constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.

These words in Blue and Red are quotes from men far smarter than me.

That said, I am relatively sure that we will eventually finds that there will be a minimum requirement of 6 constants (could be 7 even!) will be required to explain all that we observe in our universe!

The recent published works of Nassim Harramein seems to support that statement.

The following is attributed to purported Time Traveler John Titor who claimed to be from the year 2036 - and visited us in yr 2000/2001

Source: Posts-January 2001 (http://www.johntitor.com/Pages/PostsJan.html)

Who doesn't love string theory? Please forgive the next few comments, I'm trying to be cryptic and jump starting my memory at the same time. In 2036, string theory still dominates physics due to its continued "effect" of encompassing other physical properties from unrelated fields. A great deal of the theoretical mathematics behind time travel was discovered by testing various ideas in string theory and eliminating the anomalies. As I recall, it was this original work that led to the final proof that six dimensions do indeed curl up to give us our observable universe. This in turn supported more of the theoretical math behind time travel.

It's ironic that the beauty of string theory gives future engineers the confidence to create the distortion unit even though the final proof is still unknown.

Perhaps we should all agree what we mean when we use the phrase "time travel". We are all moving forward in time just by existing and the effects of acceleration and gravity do "slow" time down for the observer so the rest of the world seems to speed up around them.

If we call this natural time travel (time-like trips on a single worldline) then perhaps its really controlled time travel that you are after (space-like trips on a single worldline or traveling to alternate worldlines).

With that, it may then be useful to separate the concept of controlled time travel into theory and practice. In theory, time travel was taken seriously by mainstream science when it discovered that Einstein's equations do indeed support the possibility of controlled time travel under special relativity. Since special relativity (under its current limitations) has been proved useful and accurate in predicting other physical phenomena, it is widely believed that controlled time travel is also possible.

Nearly all of the solutions that allow time travel in special relativity also have the annoying problem of crushing the time traveler in a wake of radiation and gravity.

In my experience, there is only one safe way to obtain controlled time travel and that involves the "safe" properties of a Kerr singularity (black hole). However, I do not discount the possibility of other methods either physical or metaphysical. I'm just not sure I would bet my life on them without any math to back them up.

You mentioned a divergence percentage between time lines. How is it possible to measure divergence?The measurement for worldline divergence is an observation variable isolated to the distortion unit. An effective analogy would be a "gravity radar". The unit's sensors take a "snapshot" of the local gravity around the unit before a flight. During travel, this baseline is periodically checked to make sure there are no major changes in the environment that would cause a catastrophic mass failure (brick wall appearing from nowhere). The percentage of VGL divergence from one worldline to another is a calculated guess by the three computers that control the unit based on its starting point. It is useless in describing characteristics of individual worldlines.

There is a bit of folklore about the first distortion driver who reaches a destination with a zero divergence. This would mean they had traveled on a space-like trip to their own worldline of origin. This paradox is quite possible although highly unlikely. I wonder if anyone out there can take current string theory and make that one work on paper?

You said 6 curled up dimensions. The current string theory suggests that there should be at least 7.

I may be mistaken but I thought it was pretty well established now that (N-10) was on track.

Does the microsingularity that powers your time machine physically reduce the size of objects during operation? Actually, there are 2 singularities in the unit. The gravity field is manipulated by three factors that affect it in distinct ways. Adding electric charge to the singularities increases the diameter of the inner event horizons. Adding mass to the singularities increases the area of gravitational influence around the singularities. Rotating and positioning the polar axis of the singularities affects and alters the gravity sinusoid.

The effects of the gravity produced by the unit do not have enough time to significantly alter physical objects within a reasonable distance from the outside of the sinusoid. No, things do not get smaller.

If the electron injection system alters the shape of the field, would that not force the unit to accelerate through space as well as time?There is no relative movement in space due to three main factors. Large, kinetic energy inducing effects of the gravity field are compensated for by the interaction of the singularities. The mass of the unit and any objects inside the sinusoid do not exhibit any huge increases on the departure worldline during travel. The observed path of the traveler is obtained by changing the gravity, not by moving the vehicle. The black hole comes to you.

To me, time has two definitions. I see time as a mathematical component of a 10 dimensional super universe. It is a variable I use to define my location and existence. I also see time as a metaphysical compromise our senses use to define the area of collective existence God has placed us in.

Yes, a "Zero Deviation" is thought to be impossible. However, consider that an exact entry point "may" not be necessary to get home. The important factor is the path, not the destination. Under multiple world theory, there are an infinite number of "homes" that I could return to that don't have me there. The divergence for that window is somewhere near .0002377%.

Parallel universes exist independently of each other and only interact to avoid the collapse of the wave function for any given particle or event that you are looking at. I like to imagine it as a series of parallel lines crossed by a wavy wave. Each point on the wavy line where a straight line crosses it represents an alternate outcome. The multiple "yous" on each worldline record a different result for the activity of the particle.

I believe the closest non-related evidence for multiple universes right now comes from the physics (derived from special relativity) of rotating (Kerr) black holes. If you examine a typical Penrose map, science agrees that you can travel to "other universes" through these cosmic oddities. They can't be different places in your own universe (worldline) because you would have to violate the speed of light limit to get there. Since the existence of multiple universes is a reality from my viewpoint, please allow me to disclose an idea we toss around a bit in 2036. Since all possibilities, outcomes and events are occurring and exist simultaneously; it would mean there are multiple universes out there where "you" are living a day behind and a day ahead of the "you" on this universe.

There are some who believe that memory is some sort of information transfer or communication with the "yous" in the past, across worldlines or universes. Although this is seemingly quite ridiculous, if you think that could be true, than physics tells us that the same information transfer from our future selves on other worldlines is not only possible but certain. Could it be that fantasy or "what if" scenarios are actually future memory from an alternate "us" on a future worldline?

According to physics, there is no reason why this cannot be true.

Greetings. I am a time traveler from the year 2036. I am on my way home after getting an IBM 5100 computer system from the year 1975.

My "time" machine is a stationary mass, temporal displacement unit manufactured by General Electric. The unit is powered by two, top-spin, dual-positive singularities that produce a standard, off-set Tipler sinusoid.

My initial flight was from 2036 to 1975 (61 yrs). I then went from 1975 to 2000 (25 yrs.) Later this year, one of two favorable windows will open and I will return to my 2036 (35 yrs.)

(1) I would estimate there are about 10 units like mine (C204) and twenty larger units (C206). The main difference is the sensitivity and number of the main Cesium clocks. I would estimate that some sort of public time travel will be common around 2045.

The distortion unit reaches its target destination by using very sensitive gravity sensors and atomic clocks. The basic unit of calculation is the second. So yes, in a sense you do "dial in" in a date and the computer system controls the distortion field. At maximum power, the unit I have is capable of traveling about 10 years an hour.

Unfortunately, time travel is not an exact science. There is inherent error and chaos in the computers ability to make accurate calculations. Based on the current technology of the clocks and sensors, distortion units are only accurate to about 60 years or so. So no, in 2036, we are unable to travel back 1000 years due to the error rate in the system. The divergence between the worldline of origin and the target worldline would be too great.

The source of power for the C204 that allows it to distort and manipulate gravity comes from two microsingularities that were created, captured and cleaned at a much larger and "circular" facility. The dual event horizons of each one and their mass is manipulated by injecting electrons onto the surface of their respective ergospheres. The electricity comes from batteries. The breakthrough that will allow for this technology will occur within a year or so when CERN brings their larger facility online.

Perhaps it would have been clearer to state that the math has been around since 1970. I would urge you to examine the properties of Kerr black holes and Tipler cylinders. An actual working prototype was first tested in 2034.

Miniaturizing the clocks and sensors, creating clever ways to vent x-rays and creating a computer system dependable enough to calculate the changes required to the field were the main challenges.

All interesting suggestions related to this topic for consideration or to ponder if you prefer.

In yr 2001 when this was first posted online believe CERN facility was still under construction and not widely publicized yet he named it before most anyone had heard of it.

I'm aware he made some predictions that have not eventuated on this world time line like "no olympics after yr 2004" for example.

Also that USA would erupt into internal conflict (civil war?) with a brief short (nuclear) "world war 3" in 2015!

There are many who spend an inordinate amount of time trying to discredit JTitor as a time traveler and good luck to them.

I am personally more interested in what he says about time itself and how it relates to my hypothesis that there's as much energy within Time as there is within Mass i.e. M = Δ T.

With your advanced Math ability - why not resolve the equation I posted a page or so back i.e. substitute Einsteins Alpha constant (1/137) for C^2 in Einsteins original 21 equation proof for e=mc^2?

So far no one else here has bothered.

Cheers!

Ian Moone

01-19-2012, 11:58 AM

Junior Member

So it would seem, young jeddi!

Perhaps you should start a thread of your ow to that effect, - rather than seek to change the topic of this one by posting an off topic reply.

Thank you.

Ian Moone

01-24-2012, 12:04 PM

See Kiddies - ample proof that energy drinks, mixed with crystal meth will severely fuck with your brain! :rolleyes:

This intellect is our species best hope for the future?

Nuke us all now and save us the torture of being slowly dumbed to death!.

Damn oxygen thieves... :p

A simple condom when you were both still just a shag in your dads bag could have saved the world all this grief.

Perhaps your dads should have both been sterilized at birth, or at least stuck with wanking in the shower and creating drain babies!

Now the world is stuck with you two....

If ever there was a case for shape shifting aliens that feed on human flesh - you two make the supreme case for it!

Cheers!

Ian Moon

01-25-2012, 07:43 AM

See Kiddies - ample proof that energy drinks, mixed with crystal meth will severely fuck with your brain! :rolleyes:

This intellect is our species best hope for the future?

Nuke us all now and save us the torture of being slowly dumbed to death!.

Damn oxygen thieves... :p

A simple condom when you were both still just a shag in your dads bag could have saved the world all this grief.

Perhaps your dads should have both been sterilized at birth, or at least stuck with wanking in the shower and creating drain babies!

Now the world is stuck with you two....

If ever there was a case for shape shifting aliens that feed on human flesh - you two make the supreme case for it!

Cheers!

Precisely.

ragavang43

03-18-2012, 06:46 AM

NIce explanation

vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.