Jump to content

Time Travel in a Holographic Universe


RainmanTime
 Share

Recommended Posts

This post is for those on this board that do NOT want to talk about Titor or predictions, but would RATHER discuss the issues surrounding a scientific approach to understanding Time, and therefore coming closer to the ability to Time Travel.

 

Ever since reading about and coming to grips with the concepts behind John Archibald Wheeler's theory of the Holographic Universe, I've been doing my own work trying to develop what I believe are natural links between information and physical energy, and how they might be used to modify Time. My tools have been the sciences of Information Theory and Thermodynamics that I have learned as part of my engineering career.

 

It is my belief that the differences between classical thermodynamic entropy and that of information entropy will be part of the key to achieving time travel. This leads me to the thought that our development of the information sciences in this information age have been a necessary prerequisite for us to be able to crack the code of linear time in our present and immediate future. I am quite certain that advances in closed-loop information processing are the key technology that will lead us forward in this regard.

 

Thermodynamic entropy is what defines the linear, progressive "arrow of time" for physical systems. It speaks of irreversibility of energetic processes, and therefore that "a system left on its own will tend to degrade and become chaotic." Yet in control systems science, we apply the resource we call INFORMATION, in closed-loop manners, in order to be able to overcome the natural tendency towards chaos in a given system. In doing this we also reduce the total energy requirements of a system to perform its function.

 

Before we can understand that information is the tool that will assist us in breaking the time barrier, we must first come to the agreement that time is relative to the observer. Hopefully no one will disagree with this, because if you do you will have to answer to Einstein, who showed us that this is true. Next, we must understand that our local, relative time as individual observers is distinctly defined by information that arrives at our senses. Information in the form of how we observer Matter in Motion (as I have shown before, this is the common theme for how we measure Time in our linear, physical existence). In simpler terms, we define time by the information we receive and perceive.

 

The linear universe that we see and perceive is only part of the picture. This is now being shown as we understand that there really is "dark energy". However, we can describe the physical universe that we perceive in very rigorous, scientific terms as to how linear time progresses. This progression of time can be defined in several ways, as described in THIS article. The summary from this article is that the following progressions are equivalent in how we describe our physical universe:

 

"Potential energy -> entropy

 

Ordered energy -> disorganized energy (heat)

 

High-quality energy -> heat (low-grade energy)

 

Order -> disorder

 

Improbability -> probability"

 

NOTE: The symbol "->" can be read as "...progresses over time towards increasing..."

 

Now I am going to make a big leap, and I hope those who are still reading can make the leap with me: These scientific, physical, and mathematical descriptions of our universe and its "arrow of linear time" accurately describe HALF of what is going on in our universe... the portion of our universe that we can see and observe. I maintain that there is another half to our universe which embodies the exact opposite definitions that you see above, which are derived from our direct perceptions. The reason I believe this is because in EVERY other principle of science we have come to understand that wherever there is a "force" acting in one direction, there is an equal an opposite "force" that results in the opposite direction. Things always come in polar opposite pairs. Electromagnetism is the highest form of this art that we know and use in the information-based society of today.

 

So what IS the "equal and opposite half" of the universe that mirrors the physical processes and their "arrow of time" that we see above? Well, I hate to have to say it, but the only logical answer is the SPIRITUAL, a-physical, mind-dominated half of the universe. And where we, in our physical forms, process physical energy, we in our spiritual forms, process aphysical information. It is no less than the coupled system of MIND and MATTER, where MIND exerts its WILL over MATTER.

 

Can you dig it? Care to discuss it? Want to comment on it? Add to it?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This post is pointless, as your combining dark energy, with distant light.

 

The Hubble proto galaxies survey, went very far back in visual light.This was in order to determine the nature of an empty field of ,light in Ursal Major, where supposedly no star groupings were.

 

After the Hubble had trained it eye on this supposed null and void area. Stars did star to come in, very slowly, at first.

 

What they had found is that these very distant and old galaxies, that were considered prototypical via their natures.These systems were so ancient in time, that they had supposedly dated to the beginning of the universe.

 

This leaves a conundrum.This is as the difference between the Bell Labs Experiment of taking an atomic sound microwave resonance from the measured wall of the distant edge of this universe,. and the very old galaxies as seen by the Hubble, do not, in-fact, match.

 

If you go by actually distance, these galaxies can not be measured as part of a main of space, extolling the correct distance away from the universe, as we know it?

 

So this leaves the conundrum, that if very distantly view light, is active in its vitality of reciprocally contiguous passage.This is so as to be measured as a light ray quality, or the wave of C, then how does this measure against the know sounding the know wall of the universe itself from Bell Labs?

 

Thre answer is, that it doesn't.

 

The question here, and this is a careful question to be asked, if your going to have access to time travel, is in the distant light rays, or their protypical characteristcs, similar to these knowns.

 

So is there access to these light rays, as they invest, in a known stringed mass?

 

I would venture to say yes.

 

Is this happening now?

 

I would also say yes.

 

To be more exact, are some using time travel now?

 

The answer would be, if time travel is ever invented, then they are using it now.

 

In the past it has been shown that both red shifts and blue shifts in light pressure are equal within their dynamics, regardless of flow.

 

There are other issues here, as say there are supposed gods, that have their places within that time era?

 

What happens to the time traveler who materializes in-front of these gods and is ignorant to them?

 

Any fool, could pretty much figure this one out.

 

Even if you worship them and bow down to them, if they know your true intentions towards them, they might just kill you, anyway.

 

This is not a joke, not to be made lite of and I' serious when I have mentioned this here.

 

Dark matter is important as it is a mover force, which has a purpose.

 

The dynamics of all galaxies, is thought to go through creational moments, which cause both compaction and creation within sectional matrices, within certain galaxies.

 

This is new data, as mentioned, within Sci American Magazine.

 

*Note, on distant light phenomenon, my views were sent to the university of Allendale in Australia some four years back.

 

They were talking then, about how important or how complex the realization of stringed space was, to be realized by only humans.

 

These people, wanted to take all their information and of course feed it to a supercomputer and obtain results this way.

 

I am very happy for both them and their supercomputer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is pointless, as your combining dark energy, with distant light.

You say it is pointless, and yet look how long your response is. Clearly, if something I post causes certain thoughts to surface and be expressed by you, and those thoughts cause similar reactions in me, then there IS a point to the post. Maybe you don't see or understand the point, but it does not mean it is not there. In fact, thanks to some of the things you shared, I am already seeing the point. You DO contribute gems at times, Creeds, and I've always acknowledged that...thanks! :)

 

This leaves a conundrum.This is as the difference between the Bell Labs Experiment of taking an atomic sound microwave resonance from the measured wall of the distant edge of this universe,. and the very old galaxies as seen by the Hubble, do not, in-fact, match.

A ha! Yes, a conundrum... a PARADOX, as it were! And as I always say, to me a paradox is nothing more than a result of not understanding the reality of something, not that the reality of that something is somehow contradictory. New knowledge usually comes around, eventually, to resolve the contradiction and erase the paradox. So in this case you present...

The difference is in the FREQUENCY of the two sources used to establish the age of the universe with regard to dynamic position. Therefore, it is quite possible that some assumptions we have made about how these different frequencies (sound vs. light) operate are...ummm..incorrect. If such assumptions about these different sensory frequencies are, indeed, incorrect, then this would explain the potential source of the contradiction and conundrum. Thereby helping to explain it away.

 

So this leaves the conundrum, that if very distantly view light, is active in its vitality of reciprocally contiguous passage.This is so as to be measured as a light ray quality, or the wave of C, then how does this measure against the know sounding the know wall of the universe itself from Bell Labs?

 

Thre answer is, that it doesn't.

Ahhhh, baloney! ;) I don't think you are thinking deep enough here, Creedo! (And wow, how I sometimes accuse you of thinking WAY too deep, this is odd!). Look, there is a very simple explanation that could be responsible for this, and it could be related to a previous assumption about our universe that we have only recently discovered was incorrect:

WAS: We used to think that the universe was expanding at a constant rate. This was the wrong assumption based on limited data.

 

IS: We now know that the universe is actually accelerating its expansion, and the rate is NOT constant.

 

The next question, from a simple derivative calculus consideration of what this new knowledge tells us, is: Is this acceleration, itself, constant, or is there yet a higher rate (derivative) to this acceleration?

 

I'm not going to address the rest of your post, as it is wandering off topic. Let's just see if we can have a constructive, positive exchange on the topics above, shall we?

 

You've got some good thoughts here Creedo, and I am trying to address them. Now I want to hear your thoughts on my reply. Don't wander away on me (yet). :)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I have my own ideas as to the arrow of time. But I can't even begin to comment on the spirtual element. Spiritual speculation really could benifit from some concrete observations that at present have yet to be ascertained.

 

Now as to the arrow of time. Ever notice how mass seems to be stable for the most part? It is like mass is frozen in time. I would have to conjecture that it is as if there were two opposing forces in balance that permit the stablity of mass. Yet we know when time flows, energy is always present, and being expended. On the surface of the sun, mass is constantly decreasing in nuclear reactions and energy is released. I am leaning heavily toward believing that this is the origin of the arrow of time. The release of energy is what is causing the arrow of time. When all the nuclear fuel is spent so that there is nothing left to fuse together with an energy release, time will stop flowing. Elements above iron on the periodic table require an influx of energy to create them. If those elemental nuclear reactions were dominate then energy would have to flow inward to create them. Energy would be absorbed. The reverse of the present conditions in the universe today. I conjecture that time would flow in the opposite direction if those conditions prevailed. Just think it might be helium that is highly radioactive in a reversed time universe. And this way of thinking might lend support for a steady state universe.

 

But what is mass? I am leaning heavily toward the idea that mass is just compressed length. You can run a simple thought experiment through your mind and come to the same conclusion. Lets take a look at this simple visualization. Start with two cubic meters of space. Compress it down to one cubic meter. Now fire a bullet through this compressed one cubic meter. Conservation laws are in effect. When the bullet enters the compressed space, its velocity will be cut in half. To the outside observer seeing this speed reduction, one would have to conclude that A: the mass of the bullet somehow doubled, or B: the length in space has somehow become compressed. So it could be A or B. Kind of strange to have two different things that create the same outcome. Or maybe we just think we have two different things. Maybe mass is just compressed length. Well now it seems as if there is something else that becomes explained if mass is just compressed length. The mass of the sun is constantly decreasing due to the nuclear reactions. Or the compressed length is being uncompressed. Isn't the universe expanding? Maybe that is where all the extra length is coming from. The decline in mass on all the suns combined is causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. Now I like to keep things simple. Since I don't think the creator intended it to be as hard as some of us are trying to make it. So I think I just did away with the dark matter concept.

 

Now I think I adequately addressed everything without incorporating spirituality. But in doing so that just means spirituality still has to be addressed. So I may be on the road to figuring out the universe. But spirituality is still a part of the whole. Its probably a piece of the puzzle that is right in front of our noses. But untill we look right at it, we wont see it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Einstein:

 

Spiritual speculation really could benifit from some concrete observations that at present have yet to be ascertained.

One of the things I am working on...standby and stay tuned. I don't share my maths here, but I assure you there are maths developing with my thoughts.

 

I am leaning heavily toward believing that this is the origin of the arrow of time. The release of energy is what is causing the arrow of time.

You're in good company here, Einstein, because this is precisely what the laws of thermodynamics describe to us. Any/all release of energy is an irreversible process because entropy always increases. In other words, "heat" is the disorganized byproduct of all energy releases that is unavailable to do work. While it doesn't do work, it does something else...define the arrow (flow) of time.

IMHO, this is obvious, and it is even more obvious that thermodynamics and theoretical physics are saying the same thing... the establishments of these sciences have simply not "sanctified" the fact that they are, indeed, saying the same thing! But I don't need their blessing to see that they are describing the same thing from two different vantage points.

 

But what is mass? I am leaning heavily toward the idea that mass is just compressed length.

I might differ with this view, and expand your definition just a bit (based on my observations). I think we know that Mass is not constant with Time, and indeed this is the concept of the wave equation and the probabilistic nature of the electron's position. So while I agree that Mass is related to compressed Length, I think that is mixed with an equal portion of compressed Time. In other words, what we perceive as Mass is really just an attempt to describe the interaction of Space with Time...SpaceTime. This is why I define Matter as being the time derivative of Mass (e.g. Matter = dM/dt).

 

Now I like to keep things simple. Since I don't think the creator intended it to be as hard as some of us are trying to make it. So I think I just did away with the dark matter concept.

I also like to keep things simple. And I'd agree you have been able to argue-away the concept of dark matter. But I do not think you have addressed dark energy, and it is different from dark matter in a very important way, according to current physics data.

 

But spirituality is still a part of the whole. Its probably a piece of the puzzle that is right in front of our noses. But untill we look right at it, we wont see it.

I agree. But unfortunately, due to the nature of both spirituality and dark energy, neither can be directly perceived by our limited physical senses. So that we will need to use other, more extended, human faculties to "look" at spirituality.

Nice post. Thank you very much...interested in hearing more.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to:

 

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

 

This post is pointless, as your combining dark energy, with distant light.

 

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

 

You say it is pointless, and yet look how long your response is. Clearly, if something I post causes certain thoughts to surface and be expressed by you, and those thoughts cause similar reactions in me, then there IS a point to the post. Maybe you don't see or understand the point, but it does not mean it is not there. In fact, thanks to some of the things you shared, I am already seeing the point. You DO contribute gems at times, Creeds, and I've always acknowledged that...thanks!

 

Creedos insert> Dark matter is part of an area matrix as we view it in utility, not as a prevader of catastrophe, as some term it.

 

Again, very carefully put this time, creational moments within a galactic grouping of systems, may involve dark matter as well.

 

This work comes from Wendy Freidman and husband from the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena California.

 

She was intrested in the age of ghost veil explosions, and the spectral date of those past gigantic explosions.

 

In later articles, same mag. they came out with, that creational moments might occur in any grouping of stars and or systems, due to gravity attractions, which are apart from the early creational dynamics of any said beginning of the universe?

 

*So this might mean, that we the observers, could be going through one of these fazes yourself, and never even know it.

 

This dynamic and the greater dynamic of the action of the universe, for a short time, might be separated.

 

This is why dark matter as part of your overall beginning series of equations, may not be part of the dynamic, which is what are the depths and dimensions of the holographic universe?

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

This leaves a conundrum.This is as the difference between the Bell Labs Experiment of taking an atomic sound microwave resonance from the measured wall of the distant edge of this universe,. and the very old galaxies as seen by the Hubble, do not, in-fact, match.

 

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

 

A ha! Yes, a conundrum... a PARADOX, as it were! And as I always say, to me a paradox is nothing more than a result of not understanding the reality of something, not that the reality of that something is somehow contradictory. New knowledge usually comes around, eventually, to resolve the contradiction and erase the paradox. So in this case you present...

 

1>The difference is in the FREQUENCY of the two sources used to establish the age of the universe with regard to dynamic position. Therefore, it is quite possible that some assumptions we have made about how these different frequencies (sound vs. light) operate are...ummm..incorrect. If such assumptions about these different sensory frequencies are, indeed, incorrect, then this would explain the potential source of the contradiction and conundrum. Thereby helping to explain it away.

 

On your say marked 1>This was an older telling, of microwave radiation, measured from Bell Labs, which was a said resonant off the wall of the universe, as part of a complied series of standing waves, or the edge of our universe as we know it.

 

No any frequency or series of freewquincies that I know of.

 

This is Bell Labs info, let to the public.

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

So this leaves the conundrum, that if very distantly view light, is active in its vitality of reciprocally contiguous passage.This is so as to be measured as a light ray quality, or the wave of C, then how does this measure against the know sounding the know wall of the universe itself from Bell Labs?

 

2>Thre answer is, that it doesn't.

 

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

 

2>Ahhhh, baloney! I don't think you are thinking deep enough here, Creedo! (And wow, how I sometimes accuse you of thinking WAY too deep, this is odd!). Look, there is a very simple explanation that could be responsible for this, and it could be related to a previous assumption about our universe that we have only recently discovered was incorrect:

 

WAS: We used to think that the universe was expanding at a constant rate. This was the wrong assumption based on limited data.

 

IS: We now know that the universe is actually accelerating its expansion, and the rate is NOT constant.

 

The next question, from a simple derivative calculus consideration of what this new knowledge tells us, is: Is this acceleration, itself, constant, or is there yet a higher rate (derivative) to this acceleration?

 

Answer to 2>This supposition can not be answered as in astronomical and astrophysical sciences, being at its infancy, there is not a said balance between black holes being noted as injestors of raw matter and opposed to the extra-scalier exhaust, or outlet phenomenon, supposed as phantom white hole let-out.

 

Your concerned with thermodynamics as a complete and balanced system.

 

Then if this is true, what happens if a system takes in energy and raw materials, to only one corresponding side of its supposed equilibrium engine?___________Wooof, BOOM!

 

Say there are no white holes, then isn't this is what you'd have?

 

Calculus wouldn't cover here, it would be an extension of stringed velocities, as would be the necessary description of intake and exhaust manolds of the One take-in of raw matter and then after this matter has been digested, how this matter would be deposited throughout the universe, by the said white hole phenomenon?

 

3>I'm not going to address the rest of your post, as it is wandering off topic. Let's just see if we can have a constructive, positive exchange on the topics above, shall we?

 

3>Creedo answers,..No wait you better due to the information from the book said below?

 

This is from one in your fraternity and has to do with how to universe operates, at a deeper level.

 

I would read this book, if my life depended upon it.That is if your going to go any appreciable distance in the universe?

 

Here > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312964137/qid=1115360674/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-2081328-3903931

 

Psychic Warrior (Psychic Warrior)

 

by David Morehouse "I spent my childhood in the army; I was a young nomad, traveling from post to post with my family..." (more)

 

SIPs: tasking sheet, remote viewing, remote viewers, phantom body, target folder

 

Search inside this book

 

Share your own customer images List Price: $6.99

 

Price: $6.29 & Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details

 

You Save: $0.70 (10%)

 

Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours from Amazon.com. Sold by Amazon.com.

 

68 used & new from $4.00

 

Edition: Mass Market Paperback

 

Editorial Reviews

 

From Publishers Weekly

 

About a year ago, the media reported that the Pentagon had been training and using psychic spies, operatives who garnered information through "remote viewing." According to Morehouse, the media reports arose from a disinformation campaign conducted by the CIA in cooperation with the Defense Intelligence Agency. Here, Morehouse, a former highly decorated army officer?and psychic spy in the Star Gate program?purports to tell the real story and his role in it. Morehouse, we learn, became a psychic literally by accident. He was serving with the infantry in Jordan when he was knocked out by a stray bullet that hit his helmet; afterward, he saw strange visions and experienced out-of-body episodes. Instead of recommending psychiatric treatment, the army placed Morehouse in a top secret program in which agents psychically travel to far-flung sites to "view" prisons, airplane-crash locations and the like. Morehouse's descriptions of his psychic trips are the strength of this book. Most combine mystery and suspense so skillfully that he makes perfectly believable the notion that he "visited" a friend who had been killed in an air crash. But some of his "trips," such as the time-warp call at the burial site of the lost Ark of the Covenant, seem less authentic, though they're equally entertaining. For all the detail in his recounting of his remote-viewing incidents, Morehouse's narrative leaves gaps and unanswered questions, including exactly how the viewing process works, and the Star Gate program's exact provenance. Readers may need to do some remote viewing of their own to fill in the blanks, but overall this is a dramatic tale told with flair. Photos not seen by PW.

 

Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc

 

RMT said>You've got some good thoughts here Creedo, and I am trying to address them. Now I want to hear your thoughts on my reply. Don't wander away on me (yet).

 

Creedo answers, Thank you and your welcome.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This theory that I have that mass is just compressed length came about from an observation I made. The first time I seen it I was utterly stunned. What I had done was to suspend an aluminum plate from the ceiling with thread. It can swing freely in the horizontal direction. Then I took a strong neodymium magnet and approached the aluminum plate with it. You have to see this to believe it. So download this little movie I made of the phenomena and see for yourself.

 

Sticky Space

 

The aluminum plate appears to stick to the space close to the magnet and seems to remain attached as long as I keep pushing or pulling the magnet in relation to the aluminum plate. There is no magnetic attraction at all. This appears to be something different from anything I've come across in any textbook. I have labeled the phenomena "Sticky Space". When I first saw this I thought this was something like tractor beam technology off Star Trek. I haven't come across any theories on what this is other than my own theories. I concluded that the space close to the magnet was highly compressed resulting in the apparent attachment. Now this doesn't work on all materials. But it appears to work very well with aluminum and magnesium. It did occur to me that this would be an ideal containment field to have in place if this could somehow be incorporated into an aircraft or spacecraft. It seems as if this field acts like a shield to the effects of surrounding space. It does shield against gravity as well. I tried dropping the aluminum plate on the magnet. As the plate approaches, it slows down and makes a feather touch landing on the magnet. Yet there is no attraction or repulsion at all unless there is relative motion present. I also tried different directions and found out that this sticky effect is missing in the easterly or westerly direction to the magnetic field. This is mother natures inertial dampener. And I also suspect it is the technology behind how UFO's can perform those high gee maneuvers without killing the occupants.

 

So this is a real physical observation to suggest that space can be compressed. I am really very interested in developing this technology. So just the other day I was thinking about an electron moving in a loop of wire and what kind of effect this compressed space might have on the electron. In normal spacetime as the electron punches through horizontal planes of space it leaves a wake behind in each plane that travels outward at the speed of light. That wake is what we call the magnetic field. That magnetic ripple expands outward and cuts through the opposite side of the wire loop before the electron that created the ripple gets there. When that magnetic ripple cuts through the wire it creates an opposing voltage in the wire loop. This is one of the unsolved puzzles in science today because that opposing voltage would make the electron slow down and stop if it were not for the constant input of energy. Whats puzzling is that the electron orbits the atom in the same manner but doesn't lose energy. As far as I know no one has figured out why it doesn't lose energy. Until today. I have an idea that would explain why it doesn't lose energy. And this idea just might become a reality. But for now it is just theory. Read on.

 

I was thinking about pi the other day because I had just seen something on TV discussing pi. I was wondering if the ratio of pi was really a constant. What if it changed? Well maybe it does. Going back to the electron moving through the wire loop. It occurred to me that if the space inside the area encompassed by the wire loop were compressed, it would take more time for that magnetic wavefront to cross the area in order to cut through the wire loop on the other side. In fact if there was enough spatial compression, the electron would actually get to the other side of the wire loop before the magnetic wavefront did. If that should happen then that magnetic wavefront never will cross the opposite side. The reason is because the electron is there first creating an opposing magnetic wavefront that pushes back on the initial magnetic wavefront. With no opposing voltage the electron would never lose energy. In an atom if the space were compressed like this then the electron could orbit without losing energy.

 

Look what happened to pi. The circumference of the wire loop remained the same. But since the space inside the wire loop became compressed the radius was actually becoming larger and larger. Once the radius passes 1/4 of the circumference, the electron would be able to traverse the loop with no opposing resistance. Now if I actually could compress space to allow this to happen I reason that the strength of the magnetic field inside the wire loop would continue to increase as long as I continued to add more energy. The field strength would easily pass that obtained by superconductors. In fact I am going to speculate that this is probably how UFO's create those huge gigagauss magnetic fields associated with them.

 

All I need now is a way to compress space to find out if my theory is valid.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein, look at galaxy collections as an assortment of hanging window frames.

 

Each frame, at any time, might have a differing reaction, if you go by the catastrophic creational theory?

 

Source, article referred from Sci American Magazine, creational moments in topologies with universe sections, involving attractions

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Einstein,

 

You have to see this to believe it. So download this little movie I made of the phenomena and see for yourself.

Neat video. Not astoundingly spectacular to me, but it does raise some questions. First being, have you ever tried to model the dynamical equations for this situation in MATLAB or Excel? Sometimes that can help explain what you are seeing.

What would be really helpful is having a rate and position controlled motion table that could replace your hand in this video. This would allow several different measurements to be made, where linear programs of displacement (distance between magnet face and pendulum face) as well as rate of change of displacement were studied. Such a test setup would provide data that would fully characterize the dynamics of this interaction.

 

I didn't spend a lot of time trying to model it, but my course frequency response analysis of this video (assuming constant magnetic field strength) seems to indicate to me that your hand is moving inward and outward at or about the resonant natural frequency of the hanging pendulum. Pendulum motion is fairly easy to model, if you know the mass of the pendulum and the radius of curvature of the pendulum's moment arm. Can you tell me how much your pendulum mass weighs, and the radius of curvature for the pendulum string? The only other variable needed to model this dynamic interaction would be the strength of the magnetic field of the magnet, and I would assume you could provide that number as it should be a spec for the magnet itself, right?

 

The video is interesting, but if it can be modeled in normal dynamics and analyzed with respect to natural freqencies of mass-pendulum systems, anything anomolous that still existed would be able to be researched...and possibly explained!

 

Any thoughts?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

creedo299

 

Einstein, look at galaxy collections as an assortment of hanging window frames.

 

Each frame, at any time, might have a differing reaction, if you go by the catastrophic creational theory?

I take it that you read my little article on compressed length. And it seems as if you are trying to lend a helping hand at some deeper understanding. I appreciate that. But I am very curious about that little magnet experiment. It does work with weaker magnets. But it is very pronounced with thar monster neodymium magnet I used. The compressed length approach I took toward explaining the phenomena seems to fit all to well. It is like a frame dragging phenomena. And like all things that don't fit into the mainstream science mold, it will continue to be ignored. But I have done my research and I believe that this phenomena is what Tesla was referring to as the Tesla shield. But seeing the shield firsthand in an experiment beats the heck out of someone telling you about it. And if you were paying attention when you read through, you would have realized that one of the three two-dimensional planes that make up 3-D space was not affected in the experiment. That would be the electric force plane that the electon resides in. So the electron can actually traverse a circular path unaffected by the compressed length in the other two planes of 3-D space. But the magnetic field does reside in one of those two planes and is affected. So it does appear that reality can be put together this way if my interpretation of the observations are valid. It does appear that I may have lost LtSiegmund in my explanation. The theoretical explanation does require the use of the visualization part of your brain. And I know that not a lot of people bother to exercise that portion of their brains. But obviously your not one of them creedo.

 

By the way, I have a possible answer to a method for compressing space. If I don't know something I always look around to see if the answer has already been answered. Usually mother nature has answers to just about every question you can think of. So how do I compress space? Looks like mother nature uses gravity to do that. If mass is just compressed length, then black holes have lots of mass or compressed length. Obviously gravity is keeping the compressed length at bay. So now all I need to do is to get the strength of my gravity field generators up to par for the new job at hand. There will be a gravity field intensity that compresses length to the point were the electron can outrace the magnetic field wavefront. So now I have a plan for action.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT

 

I know the mass of the aluminum is 2 grams and the strength of the magnetic field is supposed to be around one tesla. Relative motion has to be present, and as you can see there are two bodies. But this does fall into a pattern that keeps popping up all the time. The pattern of threes. Apparently there is an attraction state and repulsion state exhibited by magnets that we are all familiar with. But this appears to be a state in between attraction and repulsion. A third state. Also I used the pendulum method as an initial investigation into this phenomena. The magnet will drag the aluminum disk across carpet in the north south direction but nothing in the east west direction. I have another movie clip here to show the lack of responce in the east west direction. Check it out:

 

Motion Oriented

 

Neat video. Not astoundingly spectacular to me, but it does raise some questions. First being, have you ever tried to model the dynamical equations for this situation in MATLAB or Excel? Sometimes that can help explain what you are seeing.

No. The reason being is that there is no math for this type of behavior. So since it is virgin territory and I have my own ideas as to how to describe it. There will be compressed length in any mathematical solution I present.

 

What would be really helpful is having a rate and position controlled motion table that could replace your hand in this video. This would allow several different measurements to be made, where linear programs of displacement (distance between magnet face and pendulum face) as well as rate of change of displacement were studied. Such a test setup would provide data that would fully characterize the dynamics of this interaction.

I have played with this alot and I can say that relative motion has to be present. The stronger the relative motion is, the better the effect is. The field effect can even pickup the metal disk off the floor if the acceleration is initially strong. But once the acceleration stops, the disk just falls back to the floor.

 

I didn't spend a lot of time trying to model it, but my course frequency response analysis of this video (assuming constant magnetic field strength) seems to indicate to me that your hand is moving inward and outward at or about the resonant natural frequency of the hanging pendulum. Pendulum motion is fairly easy to model, if you know the mass of the pendulum and the radius of curvature of the pendulum's moment arm. Can you tell me how much your pendulum mass weighs, and the radius of curvature for the pendulum string? The only other variable needed to model this dynamic interaction would be the strength of the magnetic field of the magnet, and I would assume you could provide that number as it should be a spec for the magnet itself, right?

 

The video is interesting, but if it can be modeled in normal dynamics and analyzed with respect to natural freqencies of mass-pendulum systems, anything anomolous that still existed would be able to be researched...and possibly explained!

I would like to dispel your belief that this motion could be linked to the period of the pendulum. Would a demonstration of the magnet dragging the aluminum disk across carpet work? Or maybe a rapid acceleration off the floor? I firmly believe that this is one of mother natures big clues to help us understand reality. Of course it is a rather simple experiment to duplicate. You could derive your own conclusions firsthand if you so choose. I get all my neodymium magnets off ebay. And I can say in this instance, bigger is better.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein,

 

I have another movie clip here to show the lack of responce in the east west direction.

Another interesting clip. But the "problem" here is still the variability of the dynamics of your hand, among other things. As a guy who has modeled six and seven degree of freedom (DOF) relative body motion systems for a living, I am kinda familiar with this kind of territory. Unless you can quantify the position and velocity vector of your hand, you will not be able to fully understand the motion. It's an eigenvector problem.

 

No. The reason being is that there is no math for this type of behavior. So since it is virgin territory and I have my own ideas as to how to describe it.

I'm sure you won't be surprised, and hopefully you will not be offended, if I disagree. The two video clips you have provided clearly show different field strengths with respect to three axes of motion. This certainly points towards a minimum 3-DOF dynamic model, with a 6-DOF being able to more accurately reflect angular responses. That which you cannot model (mathematically) you will have a difficult time understanding.

 

There will be compressed length in any mathematical solution I present.

That could be due to your own bias, but what I am suggesting is try to model it with conventional Newtownian and Maxwellian equations. If you do that, and then can take data where the position and velocity vector of your hand motions are known (i.e. a controlled rate actuator), THEN you will be in a position to show how the data does, or does not, fit the model.

 

I have played with this alot and I can say that relative motion has to be present. The stronger the relative motion is, the better the effect is.

Again, I don't mean to sound snooty, but playing with a toy and noticing things about it you cannot explain is very different from modeling that toy mathematically and understanding where the relative motion comes from. A fair analogy would be between a pilot who knows how to operate an airplane, and an aerodynamicist who knows how the airplane generates forces and moments to sustain balanced flight. One knows much more about the airplane system than the other. Why? Because he has modeled it and studied mathematically.

 

I would like to dispel your belief that this motion could be linked to the period of the pendulum. Would a demonstration of the magnet dragging the aluminum disk across carpet work? Or maybe a rapid acceleration off the floor?

Demonstrations do not dispel belief in the scientific world...math does. Clearly there are portions of this motion that can be explained with conventional dynamics. Take a shot at describing those mathematically, and THEN show me where the conventional model does not match the data. This is a much more scientifically sound method for attempting to show some kind of new force or effect. Consider Casimir and the Casimir effect. Eventually, we were able to explain what is going on mathematically.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT

 

I just want you to know that I do repect any criticism you may have on my presentation of this phenomena. It's been very difficult for me to get anyone to talk about it or even speculate what could be going on. I do have other proposals or theories. All of them should be exploited to the end.

 

There is one phenomena that does parallel this behavior in real life that caught my attention. An electron dropping into orbit around an atom. Once captured the electron stays put. It takes energy to get the electron to leave orbit. If the aluminum disk is close to the magnet, considerable drag is felt in pulling the aluminum away.

 

Demonstrations do not dispel belief in the scientific world...math does.

Now here I disagree. I'll take an observation over a mathematical description any day. Mainly because the observation is the source for all the facts. The mathematical description is only going to be as good as the mathematician makes it. And I do have to point out that using math as a descriptive tool is probably not the best tool to use in trying to comprehend something new. Raw data gathering would be the best course of action in my opinion. And lots of differing veiwpoints attempting to describe the phenomena. I would like to see at least 20 different theories on the table.

 

I don't know if you are aware but my presentation using compressed length as an explanation is a math model. But it is just one way to look at it. I could have said that two of the three planes of motion have been turned off somehow. Just leaving a one dimensional line of motion. And that line of motion describes a circle. I also had this idea that the strong magnet actually influenced the nuclear force capture radius of the nucleus in the aluminum atoms. Extending the radius outwards, thus accounting for observed behavior. This phenomena also works on magnesium. Magnesium has been reported to be one of the main metals in UFO crash debris.

 

But I like to keep things simple. I am trying to comprehend everything in terms of time and length.

 

Clearly there are portions of this motion that can be explained with conventional dynamics. Take a shot at describing those mathematically, and THEN show me where the conventional model does not match the data.

And what if there is success using conventional dynamics? And it is all decided that this is some random quirky behavior that is of no importance at all? I have to say that I am just a little more curious than that. I don't know why but when I first saw this phenomena, I immediately had an application for it right away. This appears to me to be a way to move a craft made of aluminum or magnesium through space. It seems to drag its own spacetime with it. So no inertial effects would be felt. And it all appears to work just by moving the magnetic field. Obviously from the demonstration the aluminum will follow the moving magnetic field. So the question now on my mind is: Is there a way to make that magnetic field move without the presence of another magnetic field? So mother nature has teased me with the answer I seek. But I'm still trodding down the path to that answer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Einstein,

 

I'll take an observation over a mathematical description any day. Mainly because the observation is the source for all the facts.

The problem comes in here with respect to the simplicity (or alternately, the complexity) of those observations. This is what I am objecting to with the fact that your (uncalibrated) hand is part of the relative motion. That input needs to be quantified for the observation to be able to support conclusions about the phenomenon. A good example is Einstein's own description that embodied his statement of their being no preferential inertial reference frame. He discussed how two humans in opposing trains looking at each other cannot ascertain which train is moving if one pulls away from the other with impercepitbly low acceleration levels. Instrumenting the trains with respect to an inertial (known) reference is the only way you can overcome that confusion.

 

And I do have to point out that using math as a descriptive tool is probably not the best tool to use in trying to comprehend something new.

But it is used every day to do exactly this. When we model it with equations that heretofore have accurately described similar phenomenon, and then we take data to verify that the data does not match the model, THAT is how we know that there is a new phenomenon that needs to be accounted for. This is why I think you need to model with known math models first, then replace your hand with a rate/position controlled device, and then make detailed measurements for comparision to the model with known effects to quantitatively show the differences.

 

Raw data gathering would be the best course of action in my opinion.

Agreed that this is part of the overall solution, and with greater systemic control and measurement accuracy than your hand. :)

 

I don't know if you are aware but my presentation using compressed length as an explanation is a math model.

If so, then I would immediately want to see that mathematical model expressed explicitly, and then analytically compared to existing, known effects. In this case, I'd be interested in seeing how it relates to the equations which describe Lenz's Law. Don't you believe that this model could account for at least a large amount of what you are seeing?

 

And what if there is success using conventional dynamics? And it is all decided that this is some random quirky behavior that is of no importance at all? I have to say that I am just a little more curious than that.

And well you should be. However, I think you may be misinterpreting exactly how math models are used for exactly this kind of investigation. That is because one of two things can happen:

1) The detailed data measurements match the math model. In that case, there is no new phenomenon that needs to be explained that is not captured by existing theory.

 

2) The detailed data shows statistically significant deviations from the model. In your case, this is what you would be looking for, and it would be your ability to say something like "this test data clearly shows a departure from Lenz's Law in this certain area..."

 

I am only telling you how accepted science uses math models to confirm or deny "new phenomenon". If you are really interested in having other scientists look at this, I am just suggesting that this is part of the "homework" you will have to do before they take you seriously.

 

One of the other reasons that I think a model is required, and that part of the motion is due to pendulum dynamics, is that at the very end of your first video clip, there is an obvious departure from the uniformity of motion of the aluminum plate with respect to the magnet. If it really was "sticky space" then this break in uniform motion should not occur, yet the observation shows it did. Again, all of this calls for much better instrumentation than the human eye... for magicians have relied on the fact that the human eye can arrive at interpretations that are patently false. ;)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT

 

The problem comes in here with respect to the simplicity (or alternately, the complexity) of those observations. This is what I am objecting to with the fact that your (uncalibrated) hand is part of the relative motion. That input needs to be quantified for the observation to be able to support conclusions about the phenomenon.

OK, I agree. As long as the quantification process just involves more data gathering under more precisely controlled conditions. It would be interesting to find out if the observed motion or sticky space effect works better with a relative velocity or a relative acceleration. It does seem as if my hand is accelerating and decelerating and it would tend to suggest to me that the effect might work best in a relative accelerated frame.

 

A good example is Einstein's own description that embodied his statement of their being no preferential inertial reference frame.

Not a good example. There is observational data that does conflict with Einstein's statement. I used to argue that there are at least two preferred reference frames here on the earth. But now I am of the opinion that there are three: 1. A gyrocompass indicates the earth is rotating within a preferred reference frame. 2. The Michelson-Morley experiment clearly shows the earth is not rotating with respect to some universal frame. 3. The earth's magnetic field is also a reference frame apparently independent from the other two. In fact it does appear as if all three reference frames exist independently from each other. So any data gathering would have to be done with relativity toward these three reference frames already in existance. (By the way, I think the key to understanding spacetime lies withing the understanding of these three reference frames and how they interact with each other.) So by observation I can conclude that there are preferred reference frames. And it appears that this sticky space phenomena does create a preferred reference frame. There is another example Einstein used that I noticed also seems to be in error. He stated that one could not tell the difference between acceleration in a rocketship at one gee or sitting in a windowless room here on the earth. But there is a difference. Time dilation does accrue on the rocketship. Here on the earth it does not. So time appears to behave differently with respect to the two types of acceleration. A clue.

 

But it is used every day to do exactly this. When we model it with equations that heretofore have accurately described similar phenomenon, and then we take data to verify that the data does not match the model, THAT is how we know that there is a new phenomenon that needs to be accounted for. This is why I think you need to model with known math models first, then replace your hand with a rate/position controlled device, and then make detailed measurements for comparision to the model with known effects to quantitatively show the differences.

The reason I disagree is because there seems to be a preference for the math model over what is actually observed. If the observations don't quite fit, then fudge the data a little to make it fit. Sound familiar? I got lots of good ideas that work out on paper. But in the real world those ideas are worthless. So basically I am more interested in gathering enough data to the point that the data spells out a preferred math model to use. But as you can see I think we are shooting toward the same goal. I just have little respect for math models because it tends to promote laziness. As I am finding out, reality is not created from an armchair.

 

If so, then I would immediately want to see that mathematical model expressed explicitly, and then analytically compared to existing, known effects. In this case, I'd be interested in seeing how it relates to the equations which describe Lenz's Law. Don't you believe that this model could account for at least a large amount of what you are seeing?

If enough data can be gathered to support going with a Lenz Law approach. But if you have paid attention to the geometry aspect then you would realize that current physics mathematical descriptions just use a two planar spacetime model. Yet there are clues to suggest a three planar model would be more appropriate. I'll agree that the third plane can be derived from a two planar model, but observations suggest that the third plane exists. And I would like to remind you that mass and gravity do not fit into the two planar spacetime model. So I have to ask what if we are trying to derive the third plane when in fact the current two planar model should correctly be derived from the third plane instead?

 

I am of the opinion that this sticky space phenomena is mother natures clues as to how to link to this third plane.

 

One of the other reasons that I think a model is required, and that part of the motion is due to pendulum dynamics, is that at the very end of your first video clip, there is an obvious departure from the uniformity of motion of the aluminum plate with respect to the magnet. If it really was "sticky space" then this break in uniform motion should not occur, yet the observation shows it did. Again, all of this calls for much better instrumentation than the human eye... for magicians have relied on the fact that the human eye can arrive at interpretations that are patently false.

I am not quite sure I completely follow what you mean. But let me see if I interpreted it correctly. In the first video as my hand comes to a stop and then reverses direction you might notice the aluminum plate doesn't seem to stick in place as well. That is what I was referring to as needing the relative motion as a requirement for the phenomena to be noticed. It is almost as if once the relative motion of my hand with the magnet exceeds a certain energy level, then the effect becomes pronounced. Below that energy level then earths gravity becomes dominate again. But here is a short movie clip I made showing the energy barrier aspect. This has Tesla Shield written all over it in my opinion.

 

Stcky Space sheild effect

 

What is interesting to me is what happened to the energy of motion? It's like it got flushed. Now I personally like conservation laws myself. But what if this is an example of mother nature breaking her own laws? Are we looking at a time reversed phenomena?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein,

 

It does seem as if my hand is accelerating and decelerating and it would tend to suggest to me that the effect might work best in a relative accelerated frame.

It more than seems to, because by definition your hand is accelerating and decelerating as it crosses zero on the back-and-forth.

 

I just have little respect for math models because it tends to promote laziness.

Quite the opposite, actually! Do you know how much time and patience it takes to model something accurately? It is why so many students wash-out of engineering, and it is why folks like me can command big bucks, because it is far from a lazy job...Just takes more mind power than most people can muster up. Eventually, you have to be able to do the math to explain it to others. Again I say that this is the difference between magic and science.

 

That is what I was referring to as needing the relative motion as a requirement for the phenomena to be noticed. It is almost as if once the relative motion of my hand with the magnet exceeds a certain energy level, then the effect becomes pronounced. Below that energy level then earths gravity becomes dominate again. But here is a short movie clip I made showing the energy barrier aspect. This has Tesla Shield written all over it in my opinion.

At this point, and with this video, I am now even more convinced than ever that this is simply magnetic braking, and it results from Lenz's Law. And indeed, as the website below will explain, the relative motion is part of the magnetic braking effect, in terms of the braking force. Those neodymium magnets are so much more powerful than non-rare-earth magnets that they can induce some pretty large currents in your aluminum disc. A 1 Tesla magnet is certainly also a lotta Gauss! :)

http://courses.science.fau.edu/~rjordan/rev_notes/mag_braking.htm

 

So far as I am concerned, it all adds-up to a known electromagnetic phenomenon. How can you convince me that this is different from Lenz's Law?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT

 

So far as I am concerned, it all adds-up to a known electromagnetic phenomenon. How can you convince me that this is different from Lenz's Law?

I do think you are making my case as far as armchair laziness goes. I'm not referring to you. But that an aspect of the phenomena has been addressed by science as electromagnetic in nature and it appears it has been decided it is just an electromagnetic braking phenomena. Is there anything else that you might be able to reference to show how science has addressed the phenomena?

 

As far as convincing you? Well my case is entirely just theoretical. But then all science is just theory subject to revision. But the main thing that caught my attention was the fact that the gravitational reference frame we are all accustomed to, seems to be turned off during the effect. The effect seems to create its own inertial reference frame. It becomes the dominate reference frame. I went over Lenz's Law this afternoon and I saw no reference to any connection to gravitational shielding at all. Doesn't it seem to you that maybe our basic understanding of this phenomena is not entirely correct? I do have to remind you that mother nature creates preferred reference frames. So one of her secrets presents itself. I look at the phenomena as a preferred reference frame generator. All of physics is based upon observations. But the observations are subject to interpretation. My interpretations are obviously different. But that doesn't make them wrong. It does create more avenues for me to investigate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a strong neodymium magnet...

I just got one of those and when used with a spinning top. By adjusting the weights that are postioned on the upper portion of the top, one tries to over come the environmental conditions. By making the proper adjustments, and finding the exact center of balance between the two forces ( electro/magnetism and inertia ) the top continues to spin non-stop while levitating off the platform about 4-5 inches.

 

It seems that as I research the magnetic fields around our planet, it would take some pretty elaborate computer programs to monitor the changes of the flow of energies, in order to operate the craft smoothly. Perhaps, when they are spotted hovering they are in a magnetic lull, like the sailing ships of old that got stranded when the winds ceased. Then they zip away as they re-configure the crafts systems?

 

I get the feeling that many of the ancient sites around the globe are markers of some type for these craft. So far, I havent found any patterns in these locations and the current maps of the magnetic fields. But then time is short and I dont have enough of it to research it in depth. By looking in the thread regarding the Merkaba, I posted a picture of Stonehenge as seen from above. You will note the North / South Markers are off a several degrees from true North as indicated on the diagram. Why is this? Which method did the original creators of Stonehenge use to calculate the points of the compass. I know that when I go hiking and use a topo-map, equations are used to adjust the actual compass heading from indicated North on the Map.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a scientific approach to understanding Time...

I read a statement somewhere that got me to pondering..." Time Does Not Change! "

 

What actually changes in time? Time itself doesnt do anything. The only thing that changes in time is perception and position. What role does time play in ten minutes between us when we experience the same event. As an example, if we where to rest underneath some trees in a garden setting, and just absorb our surroundings, how is that time perceived by each of us compared to how much time actually has passed?

 

By mutual agreement and by using our watches we can say ten minutes passed...but to whom? I may have felt as though I was underneath those trees for hours, as my "spirit" becomes entranced by natures beauty. My perception of time gone or "shut-off". Your perception may be that the same span of time seemed to only be five minutes. Or Creedo's perception would be totally different as he sits upon the wooden bench, realizing it is infested by fire ants. Not wanting to ruin the experience of either of us, he chooses to endure the extreme pain of the fire ant bites. ( as the memory of the carcass in the road still haunts Creedo to this day ). So for Creedo, the time seems like an eternity before we travel elsewhere in the garden.

 

How can you define time as anything, if it does not possess any actual properties of itself? The components we have to work with are what I call.."The Perceptions of Space, Time and Mass"!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Einstein,

 

I didn't really focus on anything except the following, as this is the crux of my issue with your theory based on your observations:

 

But the main thing that caught my attention was the fact that the gravitational reference frame we are all accustomed to, seems to be turned off during the effect. The effect seems to create its own inertial reference frame. It becomes the dominate reference frame. I went over Lenz's Law this afternoon and I saw no reference to any connection to gravitational shielding at all.

Based on unquantified observations of the human eye (either live or via video) I do not see anything that would cause me to think gravity even comes into the picture here, much less that it is being "turned off". This is precisely why I think a mathematical model is necessary and, yes, more detailed test measurements. Unless you can show what part of your observation is due to conventional magnetic phenomenon (i.e. Lenz's Law), and what part *could* be due to a modification of gravity, I can see no logical reason to even bring gravity into the explanation of this phenomenon. Indeed, for the last video you have provided, it is easy enough to see that gravity (acting parallel to a line to the center of the earth) is still there. And since gravity does not act transversely in the video to begin with, I do not understand how your observation leads to a thought that gravity is being "turned off". Furthermore, this phenomenon only happens with a magnet and a conductor that can induce eddy currents. If you replace the magnet with a rock, there is no more "sticky space" phenomenon, yet gravity is still present.

In my opinion, I think you need to distinguish the effects of "what we know" from the effects of things we possibly do not know. And thus I believe your theory based on your observations is premature since it does not distinguish between these two.

 

Respectfully,

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT

 

I thought you were going to let this die. But thankyou for continuing the debate. You see it is debates like this that sometimes brings to the forefront something that should be addressed. Although I must admit that it took me the whole afternoon to think up a formidable reply.

 

This is precisely why I think a mathematical model is necessary and, yes, more detailed test measurements. Unless you can show what part of your observation is due to conventional magnetic phenomenon (i.e. Lenz's Law), and what part *could* be due to a modification of gravity, I can see no logical reason to even bring gravity into the explanation of this phenomenon.

Well it did occur to me what part of the observation could be construed as gravity like. And I might add that it does seem kind of odd that you would steer me in this particular direction. Almost as if this were a test. But anyway, here goes: Quite frequently when I think about something I will construct a mental visualization and switch back and forth between the visualization and the words used to describe it. One visualization that was running across my mind this afternoon was a coil of wire that I had hooked to my voltmeter. With the neodymium magnet I have the voltage reading on the display will readily move up or down with relative motion of the magnet. But now here is the crux of the situation. The magnet has to be moving either toward or away from the coil for the voltage to be generated. My understanding of the magnetic braking phenomena works the same way. There has to be a moving magnetic field either toward or away from the conductor for the braking effect to occur. It was described as eddy currents that setup counter magnetic fields thus producing the drag effect. Makes sense, I actually believe the explanation. In fact I just went into my lab to make sure. I hooked up a big coil of wire to my voltmeter and got my neodymium magnet out. I put the magnet inside the coil and started moving the whole assembly back and forth as if it were one object. The voltmeter confirmed no voltage generation can be obtained this way. Now I would agree that if there was motion between the magnet and the aluminum plate that eddy currents would be setup that could produce a braking effect. But you can see in the video that very little relative motion exists between the magnet and the aluminum plate. I checked with my coil of wire and the amount of actual induced voltage into the coil with the magnet just slightly moving was around 2 millivolts. So actually in the video all the relative motion of the magnet is with respect toward the earth, and not toward the aluminum plate. No magnetic field moving toward the aluminum plate means no induced braking effect. In fact if there was a counter magnetic field being setup within the aluminum plate, there should be a strong magnetic repulsion or attraction reaction. So this is what I mean that there seems to be something gravity like with this phenomena. The relative motion is with respect to the wrong reference frame. Backwards? Gravity is backwards. You only feel the force of gravity when you are not accelerating toward the ground. I like to think of gravity as accelerating space. The space is accelerating downwards. I haven't entirely figured this phenomena out yet. But if you keep the debate going, I will.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy Friday the 13th Einstein,

 

But thankyou for continuing the debate. You see it is debates like this that sometimes brings to the forefront something that should be addressed.

You're welcome, and I totally agree. You'll get no argument from me on that point, friend! :)

 

Well it did occur to me what part of the observation could be construed as gravity like. And I might add that it does seem kind of odd that you would steer me in this particular direction.

Well, to be completely honest with you, I am really more interested in discussing your theories of how things (coordinate systems?) all come in sets of THREES, as that is an area where I agree with you and, through my own research and analysis, I think there is something "there". No surprise, since I do not hide my favoritism for 3x3 matrices and tensor math! ;)

 

But you can see in the video that very little relative motion exists between the magnet and the aluminum plate.

Now which of your videos are you referring to when you say this? Again just being honest with you, I have a hard time following exactly what your words are saying with regard to the coordinate systems involved in your various videos. This is why a guy like me prefers math models. But when it comes to dynamical situations and relative motion and relative reference frames, not only am I used to mathematical descriptions, but I also rely on the time-honored tool of engineering, the Free Body Diagram. In fact, when we teach college level engineering we always teach students to draw their FBDs first, and from these they derive the math models of the dynamic situation they are trying to describe and analyze.

I wish we could communicate about these topics of yours in both mathematical equations and/or free body diagrams. That would help us be precise in what we are saying to each other.

 

So this is what I mean that there seems to be something gravity like with this phenomena. The relative motion is with respect to the wrong reference frame. Backwards? Gravity is backwards. You only feel the force of gravity when you are not accelerating toward the ground.

And again let me plead ignorance for I do not fully comprehend what you are trying to describe in words. I guess it is really my own weakness and limitation, because whenever I discuss guidance and control dynamics of bodies with colleagues at work, we do so with diagrams and math. Old habits die hard! :)

 

I like to think of gravity as accelerating space. The space is accelerating downwards. I haven't entirely figured this phenomena out yet. But if you keep the debate going, I will.

Sure. If you're willing to chat, and we can find some common ground that we both wish to investigate (in different analytical ways), then I can't see how anything but good could come from it.

I have developed an advanced form of tensor math that can describe the physical interactions of Mass, Space, and Time in addition to describing the aphysical interactions of Mind, Soul, and Spirit. And for some strange reason, I have the feeling that your experimental energy and my analytical energy could possibly combine to achieve something very exciting. What do you think?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't even realize it was Friday the thirteenth. But what a wonderful day it was for me. You see I had this idea on what was causing the anomalous sticky space effect. So I spent a good portion of the day writing it down. I didn't realize what I had done till I was just about finished. And I'm still in shock.

 

I was thinking about magnetic fields and how they are formed. In electronics we were taught that magnetic fields expand and collapse causing electron flow in wires to oscillate back and forth. But when I think it through the theory is not entirely correct. The magnetic pulse travels outward at the speed of light never to return. So what looks like a collapse and field reversal is actually just the electron changing direction in the wire. Probably due to just voltage swings. So the magnetic field always radiates outward. At least in this described instance.

 

Well I've spent some more time thinking about this. And a mathematical solution does present itself. It occurred to me that during that the back and forth acceleration in the pendulum video, the aluminum plate does seem to remain in a constant position relative to the magnet. In fact if there is magnetic braking in effect then to actually move the aluminum plate during the effect, there would be drag felt. The aluminum plate appears to be at the bottom of an energy trough. It would take an additional force to make the aluminum plate move. That is why it remains in place relative to the magnet. This is very similar to mass. Mass remains in place unless force is applied to make it move. So it appears we have created the effect of mass on the magnetic plane.

 

Now it did occur to me that we are moving the magnetic field in a manner different from what we are accustomed to. Normally magnetic fields move outward as the flow of electrons in wires change direction, the magnetic field changes direction as well. But here we have a magnetic field being accelerated in a linear direction. As if it were a particle. Now this is interestingly significant. I was reading about a mathematical solution on the net that treated the magnetic field as the primary source and the electric field as a secondary source. What this means is that electric and magnetic fields behave in a similar manner but are on planes at right angles to each other. A magnetic field expanding creates a linearly accelerating electric field. The magnetic field is moving in a radial direction. In the sticky space demonstration the magnetic field is moving in a linear direction. Now that rang a bell for me. Because you see the electrons electric field just moves in a linear direction inside a wire. And when it does move in a linear direction, a radial magnetic field is produced. I see a pattern. If I can get the electrons electric field to move in a radial direction a differnt kind of field should be produced. In my Tesla coil experiment I am speculating that the electric field is moving in a radial direction. And it appears I am getting a field effect very similar to gravity.

 

But if the same rules apply that exist for the electric field and magnetic field, then the radial electric field should be accompanying something that is linearly accelerating. I don't know if you were aware but a gravity field could be described as a linearly accelerating mass field. The zero point where no force is felt on mass is actually during freefall in a gravity field. During freefall the only time you would feel the effects of a force is if you were to push off something. So during freefall it appears you are at the bottom of an energy trough. Just like sticky space but you are accelerating.

 

Now back to this sticky space phenomena. The magnetic field is accelerating linearly. Use the same rules. A radial field should be present. We are seeing the effect of mass. So it appears mass and gravity exist on the third spatial plane. That third plane intersects both the electric plane and the magnetic plane. The intersection point for the magnetic plane is accessed by a linearly accelerating magnetic field. The intersection point for the electric plane is a radially moving electric field.

 

So each plane shares a connection to the other two. I've linked gravity and mass to electric and magnetic phenomena. You could say this is a unified field theory.

 

But wait. There's more. A radial electric field can be made to either expand or collapse. So gravity or antigravity fields would be possible. But a magnetic field only expands. So only the positive form of mass can be accessed. It may be the magnetic plane that is responcible for the arrow of time. If a magnetic field could be caused to collapse then maybe time flow would be reversed. But it still may be possible to alter the flow of time if both gravity fields are produced. A gravity field collapsing may create a collapsing magnetic field. So as you can see I have a theory in place. Its time for applications of the theory.

 

By the way. A theory isn't fact untill it is thoroughly reviewed and gone over by many minds. There could be something I missed. All I did was notice a pattern and extrapolated. But it does have some nice symetry elements. The three planes of space and the four types of space. Maybe five if you consider antigravity. All in all there should be eight different types of space. Some of which may be off limits for reasons yet to be decerned.

 

Also if you don't quite follow the visualizations, just let me know and maybe I could get some diagrams up here to clear things up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...