# Time travel through time dialation and wheels.

## Recommended Posts

Wheels cause greater time dialation close to their center and less at their outer rims. Here is a diagram of this.

[No message]

##### Share on other sites

Did you look at the diagram and read what it said.I believe i am right.The people will decide who is right.I think the people will get it but you won't.I can't believe you are so blind.

##### Share on other sites

Did you look at the diagram and read what it said.I believe i am right.The people will decide who is right.I think the people will get it but you won't.I can't believe you are so blind.

Yes, of course I looked at it.

##### Share on other sites

When I come back from flight testing my students' aircraft this afternoon, I will even run the calculations on your wheel and check them.

##### Share on other sites

Holy crap even your basic geometric calculations are wrong, man!

##### Share on other sites

You know i said i was not an engineer.Dont beat me up about it.

I won't stop arguing my point.Because i believe it is still valid.

I will start now using engineering math.

I guess i need to refine my calculations a little.

I still believe that is not going change anything.

I used this to get the radius of the wheel.

Given the circumference, divide the circumference by pi (3.1416) to give the diameter of the circle, then divide by 2 to find the radius (half of the diameter).

Since C = (pi) D and D = 2r, then r = C/2pi

This is what i came up with.

1.909854851031322

Is it correct?

##### Share on other sites

You have to include the percentage of the inch in each circumference within the wheel.When you do your calculations or else i will not believe you.That means no rounding off.

##### Share on other sites

Did you look at the diagram and read what it said.I believe i am right.The people will decide who is right.I think the people will get it but you won't.I can't believe you are so blind.

That's absolutely correct.

##### Share on other sites

You have to include the percentage of the inch in each circumference within the wheel.When you do your calculations or else i will not believe you.That means no rounding off.

No rounding off?

You don't understand rounding.

##### Share on other sites

You know i said i was not an engineer.

You don't need to be an engineer to get the geometrical calculations for a circle correct.

##### Share on other sites

a wheel that rotates 36 inches per hour.

36 inches circumference diameter 11.45

2 divided into diameter to find the radius

5.72 radius 3 divided by 5.72= 1.90 the radius of the first of the third spots

find the circumference of the first of the three spots.

2 multiplied by 1.90=3.80 diameter multiplied 3.14=11.932 inches

3 divide 36 inches per hour=12 inches per hour

The radius of the wheel is divided into three equal spots.

I believe even with a 11.932 inches it would still work.That area would be moving at 12 inches per hour.

I am still making the diagram.Just incase you do not understand.

##### Share on other sites

No I don't understand.I guess I forgot.On second thought i get it.

The wheel rotates 36 inches per hour and it has 36 inch circumference.That is not clear to you.That translates into one revolution per hour.

##### Share on other sites

No I don't understand.I guess I forgot.On second thought i get it.The wheel rotates 36 inches per hour and it has 36 inch circumference.That is not clear to you.That translates into one revolution per hour.

##### Share on other sites

Do you understand that if the circumference of particular spot on the wheel that if it it is larger than the speed more time would pass when it fully rotates and if the circumference is smaller less time would pass when it fully rotates?That was what i was saying.

##### Share on other sites

1 Rev/Hour = .00175 radians/second.Do you understand that if the circumference of particular spot on the wheel that if it it is larger than the speed more time would pass when it fully rotates and if the circumference is smaller less time would pass when it fully rotates?That was what i was saying.

The sentence structure is poor and the grammar is confusing, but yes I think I understand what you are trying to say.

##### Share on other sites

It is a classical problem we always see in people who do not have a grasp on engineering principles.

##### Share on other sites

The Prime Meridian being set at The Royal Observatory, Greenwich, London, England was a choice, after many other choices and much disagreement.

I think the number for pi, 3.14159..., being "the ratio" of a circle's diameter to it's circumference, was a bit more than just a choice.

##### Share on other sites

C= pi x D or 2pi x R

##### Share on other sites

I believe that the government is using pi and some of modern day mathematics to cover up the secret of time travel.Which i have found.That is why you cannot find out how to time travel.

##### Share on other sites

6 inch radius that goes 6 inches per hour

3.1416/6=.52361/2=.261805/3 radius divided into three.Then divide 3 into 261805=.07933

To find the circumfernce do this..07933x2=15866x3.14=.49819

This would make a even better time machine.

##### Share on other sites

• 2 months later...

Hilarious. Been away from TTI for a while and now I come back to see a belabored thread that digresses into education on basic math. I know why my family is home-schooling our son, but is the public educational system this bad, or did we have someone on here who didn't get math in primary school?

##### Share on other sites

It is the educational system. It almost seems that terrorists are in control of what gets taught. Making sure that future generations will not be competent enough to comprehend anything.

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...
Hilarious. Been away from TTI for a while and now I come back to see a belabored thread that digresses into education on basic math. I know why my family is home-schooling our son, but is the public educational system this bad, or did we have someone on here who didn't get math in primary school?

Auditor,

Yes it is just that bad. Ray and I have commented on this subject on the forum for years. People have ideas, post their thoughts about them and have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the science or math underlying the topic therefore they can't understand why their ideas can be easily dismissed. It's not entirely their fault but they (as adults) support the system that propagates the insanity.

Thus we are left with the Dr. John Baez (UC Riverside) Crackpot Index:

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted view.

8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

14. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

15. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

16. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

17. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

18. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

19. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

21. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

22. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

23. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

24. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

25. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

26. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

27. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

28. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

29. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

30. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

31. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

32. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

We see #14 "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations" all the time. I think that you'll see it above in this very thread.Like it or not, to understand physics you absolutely have to understand the math. No debate necessary.

We also see #15 "10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it" just about as often as 14. Our schools also fail to define for students the meaning of [insane] opinion and scientific theory. There's a bit of a difference between the two terms.