Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Science
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 08-26-2011, 10:37 AM
Ian Moone Ian Moone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 108
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?


Quote:
And please do not post in dark blue. It is hard to read and infantile
Its 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?

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!

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

Quote:
The speed of sound is the distance travelled during a unit of time by a sound wave propagating through an elastic medium. In dry 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....



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!

__________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change handy!

The primary manifestation of Time is Change

Ee does NOT equal Em Cee Squared!

M = Δ T
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-26-2011, 11:17 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?

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.
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-26-2011, 11:21 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?

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?
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-26-2011, 12:03 PM
Ian Moone Ian Moone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 108
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?

Quote:
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 = &Delta; T?

Cheers!
__________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change handy!

The primary manifestation of Time is Change

Ee does NOT equal Em Cee Squared!

M = Δ T
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-26-2011, 12:16 PM
Ian Moone Ian Moone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 108
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?

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.

Cheers
__________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change handy!

The primary manifestation of Time is Change

Ee does NOT equal Em Cee Squared!

M = Δ T
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-26-2011, 12:34 PM
Ian Moone Ian Moone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 108
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?

“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?
__________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change handy!

The primary manifestation of Time is Change

Ee does NOT equal Em Cee Squared!

M = Δ T

Last edited by Ian Moone : 08-26-2011 at 01:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-27-2011, 03:35 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?

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.
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-27-2011, 03:50 AM
Ian Moone Ian Moone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 108
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?

Ok so here it is,

Einsteins 21 equation proof for special relativity.



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!
__________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change handy!

The primary manifestation of Time is Change

Ee does NOT equal Em Cee Squared!

M = Δ T

Last edited by Ian Moone : 08-27-2011 at 03:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-27-2011, 05:01 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?

Out of curiosity where are you copying all that from?
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-27-2011, 11:14 AM
Ian Moone Ian Moone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 108
Default Re: What is TIME exactly?

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 = &Delta; 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!
__________________
Madness takes its toll - please have exact change handy!

The primary manifestation of Time is Change

Ee does NOT equal Em Cee Squared!

M = Δ T
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.