Jump to content

Time is fractured


elle
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry. I have been conducting time travel experiments, and I have found some small success. But now I find myself reliving the past and knowing the future. Those around me have done the same. It has driven them mad. I don't know how much of time and space have changed or will change, but I am sorry for the confusion I have caused.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is an observation of mine that forces tend to show up in groups of three. So if there is a separate time force, then it too should be a part of a group of three time forces. Influencing one force will affect the whole group. Perhaps if you influenced two time forces, the third time force might produce more predictable results. This is just a theoretical approach that I am pursuing. Perhaps if you were more forthcoming in what it is that you want to fix, and how the mishap came to be, I could be of more assistance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe elle got bored? Or maybe being here was affecting her? Someday she'll look back and see this even though she might not sign up with a new name. Answers are here if she needs them.

 

I'm sorry to see elle go as well but sometimes people have to go their own way or do what they think is best at the time.

 

Time is confusing, but don't know if anyone will completely understand it for a while.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Maybe elle got bored? Or maybe being here was affecting her? Someday she'll look back and see this even though she might not sign up with a new name. Answers are here if she needs them.

I'm sorry to see elle go as well but sometimes people have to go their own way or do what they think is best at the time.

Or, maybe (and most likely), Elle was a troll using one of his/her puppet accounts.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just look at all the confusion over the speed of light as being absolute.

What confusion? I have not heard of any, unless it is just in your mind. The speed of light is not an "absolute", if by that you mean invariant under all conditions. It can be changed by the medium it passes through. So perhaps you are referring to the qualification of "speed of light in a vacuum"?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What confusion? I have not heard of any, unless it is just in your mind. The speed of light is not an "absolute", if by that you mean invariant under all conditions. It can be changed by the medium it passes through. So perhaps you are referring to the qualification of "speed of light in a vacuum"?

RMT

I was taught that the speed of light has a constant value. Despite all the observations that conflicted with those teachings at the time. You could compare the changing value of the speed of light to the changing value of the boiling point of water. Since waters boiling point will vary with the surrounding air pressure. Perhaps lights velocity varies with the surrounding spatial pressure. It is a known fact that light from far away stars and galaxies is red shifted. And one interpretation is that the light from those far away stars and galaxies is traveling slower than the speed of light when it reaches us. Then along comes Einstein's theory of relativity. The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. Just look at the facts. That was a failed theory right from the start.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein,

 

I was taught that the speed of light has a constant value. Despite all the observations that conflicted with those teachings at the time.

Without trying to be snarky, one of two things was troublesome about what/when you were taught this. Either: (1) The person who taught you this was uninformed and did not teach you the complete truth (i.e. that it is only a constant in a vacuum, and that it can be slowed down in various media), or (2) You were not paying attention and only heard the first part and not "in a vacuum" qualification. I guess there could be a third option: You were taught the full truth, and your recollection is what is failing you.

 

Then along comes Einstein's theory of relativity. The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. Just look at the facts. That was a failed theory right from the start.

As always, you are only selecting bits and pieces and not the whole. I suspect that this is because you do not understand the deeper mathematics of Relativity. Darby may have more patience with you on this than I. But what I will say is this: Anything that you measure with absolute units (i.e. ones that must be defined by a standard measure, as we do the meter, the second, and the kilogram) are troublesome because these are artificial standards. This is why scientists and engineers prefer non-dimensional measures and constants....ratios of measures with identical units. Such non-dimensional ratios scale up and down readily, whereas arbitrary measures do not.

 

One such dimensionless measure you may wish to investigate is the fine structure constant (alpha). It is a ratio of electromagnetic effects to quantum effects. Depending on the scale at which you are examining some physical phenomenon, at one scale e/m may dominate and at another quantum effects may dominate. Using ratios eliminates this problem. We do it all the time in aerodynamics too, hence metrics like Reynold's Number, Mach Number, Strouhal Number, etc.

 

RMT

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein,

 

 

Without trying to be snarky, one of two things was troublesome about what/when you were taught this. Either: (1) The person who taught you this was uninformed and did not teach you the complete truth (i.e. that it is only a constant in a vacuum, and that it can be slowed down in various media), or (2) You were not paying attention and only heard the first part and not "in a vacuum" qualification. I guess there could be a third option: You were taught the full truth, and your recollection is what is failing you.

 

As always, you are only selecting bits and pieces and not the whole. I suspect that this is because you do not understand the deeper mathematics of Relativity. Darby may have more patience with you on this than I. But what I will say is this: Anything that you measure with absolute units (i.e. ones that must be defined by a standard measure, as we do the meter, the second, and the kilogram) are troublesome because these are artificial standards. This is why scientists and engineers prefer non-dimensional measures and constants....ratios of measures with identical units. Such non-dimensional ratios scale up and down readily, whereas arbitrary measures do not.

 

One such dimensionless measure you may wish to investigate is the fine structure constant (alpha). It is a ratio of electromagnetic effects to quantum effects. Depending on the scale at which you are examining some physical phenomenon, at one scale e/m may dominate and at another quantum effects may dominate. Using ratios eliminates this problem. We do it all the time in aerodynamics too, hence metrics like Reynold's Number, Mach Number, Strouhal Number, etc.

 

RMT

I think it's all a test. Just to see who is looking. I happen to notice things in the past keep changing at an alarmingly changing rate. It does suggest the past could be alterable. Last year I was interested in the concept of mass. It has no inventor. What is it? An extra dimension? An object in gravitational free fall within a vacuum has no weight. We know the acceleration is present, so logically its mass must be zero. Weight=Force=Mass x Acceleration. So tell me who invented quantum theory? (more evidence of time tampering) Be careful if you pass any of these tests. I wouldn't want to be responsible for altering any of your unalterable beliefs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year I was interested in the concept of mass. It has no inventor. What is it? An extra dimension? An object in gravitational free fall within a vacuum has no weight.

Einstein,

 

You're mixing two seperate physical concepts, mass and weight, and appear to be using them as a single concept. Mass, basically, is the amount of "stuff" under observation - atoms, sub-atomic particles. That's a constant in a closed system assuming that there is no beta decay (for example). Weight, on the other hand, is the effect of gravity (or any other acceleration) on the mass. That's not a constant. Mass is a scalar quantity and weight is a vector quantity.

 

If you actually believe that the mass of a freely falling object is zero just stand under a brick plied on top of a scale and dropped together from the tenth floor of a building. What you'll discover is that when the scale strikes you and the brick thereafter strikes the now at rest scale that you'll have a headache and the scale will have registered the weight of the brick. ;) You might also discover simple Newtonian relativity: the acceleration vectors for both the brick and the scale were zero with respect to each other thus the weight, in that frame and only in that frame, was zero.

 

In your above example of an object falling in a vacuum your logical conclusion "mass must be zero" is wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein,

You're mixing two seperate physical concepts, mass and weight, and appear to be using them as a single concept. Mass, basically, is the amount of "stuff" under observation - atoms, sub-atomic particles. That's a constant in a closed system assuming that there is no beta decay (for example). Weight, on the other hand, is the effect of gravity (or any other acceleration) on the mass. That's not a constant. Mass is a scalar quantity and weight is a vector quantity.

 

If you actually believe that the mass of a freely falling object is zero just stand under a brick plied on top of a scale and dropped together from the tenth floor of a building. What you'll discover is that when the scale strikes you and the brick thereafter strikes the now at rest scale that you'll have a headache and the scale will have registered the weight of the brick. ;) You might also discover simple Newtonian relativity: the acceleration vectors for both the brick and the scale were zero with respect to each other thus the weight, in that frame and only in that frame, was zero.

 

In your above example of an object falling in a vacuum your logical conclusion "mass must be zero" is wrong.

Isn't it better to teach that in class?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein,

You're mixing two seperate physical concepts, mass and weight, and appear to be using them as a single concept. Mass, basically, is the amount of "stuff" under observation - atoms, sub-atomic particles. That's a constant in a closed system assuming that there is no beta decay (for example). Weight, on the other hand, is the effect of gravity (or any other acceleration) on the mass. That's not a constant. Mass is a scalar quantity and weight is a vector quantity.

 

If you actually believe that the mass of a freely falling object is zero just stand under a brick plied on top of a scale and dropped together from the tenth floor of a building. What you'll discover is that when the scale strikes you and the brick thereafter strikes the now at rest scale that you'll have a headache and the scale will have registered the weight of the brick. ;) You might also discover simple Newtonian relativity: the acceleration vectors for both the brick and the scale were zero with respect to each other thus the weight, in that frame and only in that frame, was zero.

 

In your above example of an object falling in a vacuum your logical conclusion "mass must be zero" is wrong.

I'm impressed. You got the main gist of what I was trying to convey. You actually looked at the F=MA equation that I wrote down and realized I was trying to convey with my words that the mass has to be zero. I can see you don't believe it. Only because we were both taught to believe something else. But if you are careful, you can separate your beliefs from the observations. The observation isn't going to change. It is a fact that an objects weight in a vacuum undergoing gravitational free fall is weightless or zero. The observation is an undeniable fact. Now I know we are also taught that mass has a specific value for every every element that there is. But we usually measure mass when it is associated with acceleration. With a scale or a balance, force has to be present to measure mass. There is another fact or observation that I also want to convey to you. An object on the surface of the earth has no visible acceleration through space. Yet it has weight. We were taught that acceleration is present, I suppose as a convenience so we could use the F=MA equation. But I thought about that and noticed that maybe mother nature was trying to tell us something, and we aren't paying attention. Mother nature doesn't seem to be teaching us about mass. She is teaching us about weight. So why not pay attention to the observations instead? It's not hard. It's just a different type of classroom. So lets gather the facts so far. Weight has a zero state (free fall). Weight becomes positive on the surface of the earth with its direction inward or downward. During weights transition from it's zero state to it's positive state, energy is released. Only while the weight is changing in magnitude, energy is released, i.e. during a gravitationally induced collision. This is similar to a nuclear reaction. In which mass becomes a vector as it's value changes, releasing energy in the process. Just note that the change vector in comparing a mass change vector and a weight change vector are in opposite directions, in comparison of nuclear reactions up to those involving iron. There are still more observations concerning weight. Centrifugal force produces weight. But the force vector is outward, so lets call this negative weight. As far as I know, centrifugal force is the only force at our disposal that can totally negate the gravitational force vector of weight to produce the weightless state. Gravitational weight and gravitational acceleration through space don't occur at the same time.

 

Those are the gravitational weight facts. There is another type of weight also. Inertial weight. But it has a set of different facts associated with it. The one fact that I've always paid attention to is that the weight vector and the acceleration vector are opposed, or in opposite directions to each other. And those vectors occur simultaneously with each other. Which isn't so with the gravitational acceleration and weight vectors. The gravitational weight and acceleration vectors are in the same direction but seem to be displaced from each other in time. The centrifugal weight and acceleration directions are also in the same direction and also displaced in time. Did you pay attention? All of these facts are readily verifiable through observation. If you don't agree with the observable facts, ask yourself why.

 

You might also notice that I really didn't need to use the concept of mass. Just direct observations. But there is a very remarkable similarity between the observations and electromagnetic behavior. I would have to say the the magnetic field and inertial weight are very similar in the behavior they exhibit. Using inertial weight can be used to induce centrifugal force, which would be analogous to a magnetic field being used to create voltage separating electrons from their orbits. The plus and minus weight are directly analogous to plus and minus charge.

 

I don't really see a need for theories. It kind of looks like the facts depict a model of our reality much better and with more detail. In case you didn't notice, time appears to be present and modifiable in the observations. A time machine is doable. Just pay attention to the dimensionless directions of weight depicted in the observations.

 

One more thing. I know Rainman is probably getting ready with a reply using his perception argument. So, Rainman, most of us don't have problems with our perception like you do. And most of us probably wont develop cirrhosis of the liver either.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You actually looked at the F=MA equation that I wrote down and realized I was trying to convey with my words that the mass has to be zero. I can see you don't believe it.

No, my friend. You've failed to see it. You haven't analyzed the problem. The mass is a constant. It's the acceleration that must be zero if the force is zero. In the scale-brick frame there is no relative acceleration between the brick and the scale that is going to measure the weight. Weight is a function of acceleration. To measure the weight the scale must be subjected to an accelerating force from the brick. No acceleration, no weight.

 

I assure you that if you drop a hollow sphere 10 kg mass of Pu-239 and implode it properly as it falls it will fission with a yield of ~22 kt. The mass didn't simply disappear because you dropped it. Of wait - that's exactly what happened at Nagasaki: a hollow sphere of plutonium was dropped, imploded and it yielded about 22 kt in nuclear energy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby

 

I have analyzed the problem. But all the analysis results in assumptions. Even your statements are assumptions. A while back I believe I may have mentioned that mass really isn't in any observations. But weight is. Mass seems to be a very ambiguous term. You use it like it was a quantity of atoms. Or maybe a quantity of atomic particles. If I were to stick it in the observations I wrote down. Without changing the meaning of any of the observations, I would have to face the realization that mass is just a quantity of acceleration. But in mathematics it is already understood that a variable can be any quantity by itself. Without requiring the creation of some dimensionless construct.

 

Lets look at this statement that you made.

 

The mass is a constant. It's the acceleration that must be zero if the force is zero

The statement does seem to work for an inertial acceleration. But for a gravitational acceleration, in a vacuum environment, the statement is not valid. A gravitationally accelerated object is weightless while accelerating through space. And opposite on the surface of the earth, since an object has weight with no measurable acceleration through space. The weight and the acceleration are displaced in time. No assumptions made with those observations. The observations say that there are different types of weight. So which type of weight are we referring to when using the mass term?

 

I think it would be best if we not discuss nuclear force interactions. For safety reasons.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein you have peeked my interest and brought up a question I had never thought to ask thru 1/2 a dozen chemistry classes. How do we determine a mole of anything if there is no reference of weight. If I measure 12 grams of carbon 12 I have 1 mole of carbon 12. How do I measure it in a weightless state. I can't count molecules to 6.02 x 10^23 and then say I have 1 mole and therefore 12 grams of carbon 12. I need moles and grams to do stoichiometric calculations. For 12 years I had Ksp's, enthalpies of formation, moles, and grams that let me do my job. I never considered having to think about them without weight. I had the same professor for 4 classes and he gave me a CRC handbook. I've never considered that the book may be useless in space or on another planet. I feel that I must be missing something and weight as determined by gravity is not the only consideration. I am irritated by this thought. I has been 15 years since I left that job and I'm sure I have just forgotten something. Or maybe it's something I never knew. I've come to depend on Darby's input to some of the questions posted on this site and I hope he has something this time too. I just think it bothers me that I never thought of it before. Stupid Gravity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gpa

 

You have brought up another interesting point. In chemistry, mass appears to refer to a quantity of atoms. And I was taught to use a balance rather than a scale to measure mass. On the balance, mass is always a ratio of a standard calibrated quantity of mass to an unknown amount of mass. So you could use a balance on another planet or the moon and still come out with the correct amount of mass. But a scale would show a different amount of weight due to the difference in gravity on the other bodies. I know we use scales to measure mass. But technically those scales will only be accurate as long as gravitational force remains at the constant value it is on the surface of the earth. And that value isn't constant. Just in one location, the value of the local gravity will vary slightly throughout the day. So to measure mass accurately. A balance should be used. But you are correct in noticing that without the presence of the weight state, we can't use a balance to determine its mass. The atoms don't disappear in the weightless state, so if mass is a quantity of atoms, then it can't ever be zero. So the F=MA equation is not valid for gravitational weight. Due to the observation that mass would have to be zero in a gravitational free fall in vacuum. It may be that gravity has nothing to do with mass.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had more time to think about this and I don't know for sure but would a balance scale still react the same regardless of gravity but not necessarily weightlessness. If I place a 10 gram weight, calibrated here on Earth, on one side of the scale and then placed an amount of something needed to balance the scale evenly on the other side it should be 10 grams, on the Earth or Mars or the Moon, right? But in the weightlessness of space I still don't know what to think.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have analyzed the problem. But all the analysis results in assumptions. Even your statements are assumptions. A while back I believe I may have mentioned that mass really isn't in any observations. But weight is. Mass seems to be a very ambiguous term. You use it like it was a quantity of atoms. Or maybe a quantity of atomic particles...

 

yada-yada-yada <snip for brevity>

OK - Galileo, Newton, et al were all incorrect but you are correct. Yep, my statements were all silly assumptions - four years of college down the drain. I should have tinkered with magnets in my garage and become a super genious.

 

Now can we put this nonsense to bed? It's become boring.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gpa

 

A balance will work anywhere in the universe where there is gravity. Since with a balance you aren't measuring force, just a ratio of a known quantity to another unknown quantity. Out in a weightless environment you would have to create a weight environment for the balance to work. A rotating space station would probably work. If far enough away from the center of rotation, the balance will work just as it would with gravity. That would be an interesting math exercise just to see how far from the center of rotation you would have to be, so as not to negatively influence the experimental accuracy of the balance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...