Jump to content

Groundbreaking Discovery To Make Time Machines


Calc
 Share

Recommended Posts

Time Machines are what intrigue me the most when discussing Time Travel. I'm always interested in how they work in fiction, but I've always been curious as to what the "groundbreaking discovery" will be that allows us to make Time Machines in real life.

I think this "groundbreaking discovery" will be negative mass, or whats known as "Exotic Matter", essentially a type of matter that displays properties that oppose that of gravity (anti-gravity).

I'm starting this discussion so you can reply with what you think will be that discovery and how it will progress Time Travel research. Please share any ideas and theories of your own as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

This is an interest of mine too. But I don't think it will be invented using make believe. The concept of mass is an example of make believe.

There is one big clue in the electromagnetic induction phenomena. We all know that a moving magnetic field that cuts across a conductor such as a wire will induce a current flow. We use the phenomena in generators to produce electricity. But what if we vary the amplitude of a magnetic field? It also appears to produce a moving magnetic field. But amplitude is motion in a time direction. Whereas a moving magnetic field is motion in physical space.

Edited by Einstein
spelling error
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Einstein said:

This is an interest of mine too. But I don't think it will be invented using make believe. The concept of mass is an example of make believe.

There is one big clue in the electromagnetic induction phenomena. We all know that a moving magnetic field that cuts across a conductor such as a wire will induce a current flow. We use the phenomena in generators to produce electricity. But what if we vary the amplitude of a magnetic field? It also appears to produce a moving magnetic field. But amplitude is motion in a time direction. Whereas a moving magnetic field is motion in physical space.

Could you elaborate on the concept of mass being an example of make believe, I don't quite get it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Calc said:

Could you elaborate on the concept of mass being an example of make believe, I don't quite get it.

That's funny that you would go for that instead of a time machine.

Mass is a concept that I was introduced to in high school physics. It was covered in my chemistry class as well. Basically it was defined as a quantity of matter that was balanced out on a balance scale against a known quantity of matter which was called mass. It was pointed out that even if the gravitational weight of objects on the surface of the earth changed, the mass would still remain the same. It was also pointed out that we were only measuring gravitational mass. And one property of mass is that it was assumed to be constant throughout the universe for a given quantity of matter. Then we were introduced to Newton's laws of motion and his famous equation F=MA or force equals mass times acceleration. We were told to use gravitational mass when doing computations using F=MA. Despite the fact that no one has ever devised an experiment to determine inertial mass. A problem arises right from the start. Apparently the balance scale doesn't make a distinction between mass and gravitational weight. You see we were taught that we were to multiply the mass times the acceleration due to gravity at the earths surface to come up with a quantity of weight. That quantity was measured in Newtons with the math units being Kg(M)/Sec^2. One Kilogram times the acceleration due to gravity comes out to approximately 9.8 Newtons. So the scale should be calibrated in Newtons. But it does say one Kilogram right on the mass quantity I was using. Yet I can put an equivalent weight of 2.2 lbs that balances out against the one Kilogram mass. It appears that mass equals weight. And you can prove it to yourself doing the same thing I did. The math showing the incongruity is Kg=Kg(M)/Sec^2. So in order to make that equation factual, mass is just gravitational weight. At least that is what the physical observations show. Thus the concept of mass is just make believe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Einstein said:

That's funny that you would go for that instead of a time machine.

Mass is a concept that I was introduced to in high school physics. It was covered in my chemistry class as well. Basically it was defined as a quantity of matter that was balanced out on a balance scale against a known quantity of matter which was called mass. It was pointed out that even if the gravitational weight of objects on the surface of the earth changed, the mass would still remain the same. It was also pointed out that we were only measuring gravitational mass. And one property of mass is that it was assumed to be constant throughout the universe for a given quantity of matter. Then we were introduced to Newton's laws of motion and his famous equation F=MA or force equals mass times acceleration. We were told to use gravitational mass when doing computations using F=MA. Despite the fact that no one has ever devised an experiment to determine inertial mass. A problem arises right from the start. Apparently the balance scale doesn't make a distinction between mass and gravitational weight. You see we were taught that we were to multiply the mass times the acceleration due to gravity at the earths surface to come up with a quantity of weight. That quantity was measured in Newtons with the math units being Kg(M)/Sec^2. One Kilogram times the acceleration due to gravity comes out to approximately 9.8 Newtons. So the scale should be calibrated in Newtons. But it does say one Kilogram right on the mass quantity I was using. Yet I can put an equivalent weight of 2.2 lbs that balances out against the one Kilogram mass. It appears that mass equals weight. And you can prove it to yourself doing the same thing I did. The math showing the incongruity is Kg=Kg(M)/Sec^2. So in order to make that equation factual, mass is just gravitational weight. At least that is what the physical observations show. Thus the concept of mass is just make believe.

Oh I see, thank you for explaining!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2020 at 2:47 PM, Einstein said:

Thus the concept of mass is just make believe.

What would happen if the derived calculation of weight (based on gravity) - is make believe, and not mass? 

On 7/15/2020 at 12:24 AM, Calc said:

Despite the fact that no one has ever devised an experiment to determine inertial mass.

What if inertial mass is what we call weight and not based on gravity - could magnetism play a role instead?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TimeTravelResidue said:

What would happen if the derived calculation of weight (based on gravity) - is make believe, and not mass? 

What if inertial mass is what we call weight and not based on gravity - could magnetism play a role instead?

Answering your fist question: Gravitational weight is a measurement not a calculation. The measurement is directly observable. Thus making it a fact. Your scenario doesn't occur in this universe. Unless of course you are hallucinating.

Answering your second question: I've never seen anyone measure inertial mass. We can and do measure inertial weight. Magnetism has no effect on non magnetic matter. Inertial weight effects all matter. Thus indicating magnetic force produces yet another type of weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not hallucinating - thanks - thought asking questions was okay!  and i mispoke on measure/Calc - thanks for clarifying.

I was looking into logical fallacies - one of them is affirming the consequent. If A then C, A; hence C. 

As it pertains to stating mass being make believe - can anything else (other than gravity) explain weight?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TimeTravelResidue said:

If A then C, A; hence C. 

Should have added some clarification

20 minutes ago, TimeTravelResidue said:

- can anything else (other than gravity) explain weight?

when we affirm the consequent its - If A then C, C; hence A.

Sorry - would have edited original - was about to burn dinner ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, TimeTravelResidue said:

not hallucinating - thanks - thought asking questions was okay!  and i mispoke on measure/Calc - thanks for clarifying.

I was looking into logical fallacies - one of them is affirming the consequent. If A then C, A; hence C. 

As it pertains to stating mass being make believe - can anything else (other than gravity) explain weight?

I'm not sure what you mean by logical fallacies.

Wiki used to have an article on 7 different types of mass. But Wiki has declined into the realm of complete fiction.

As for different types of weight? Weight describes a vector direction. There is room for six different vector directions in 3-D space. And no knowledge was passed down on whether or not time also creates weight vectors. But we know that charged bodies create two types of weight. One positive and one negative. Magnetic forces create two types of weight. One positive and one negative. And centrifugal force seems to be the only force that creates an opposite type of weight to gravity. So there are the six vectors needed to map out a 3-D space. Although the 3-D space presented with the observations isn't quite euclidean in nature. Since the magnetic pair of weights describe weight along a rotational path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the Wiki article on mass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

I see lots of errors. A new error I haven't seen before is the mention of Atomic mass. The periodic table of elements lists atomic weight as a property of each element. Not mass! There seems to be a massive effort to steer students away from understanding reality using facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is mass, other than a slow moving electromagnetic disturbance?
A good place to start when pondering negative mass is "what makes mass mass in the first place?"

  • The experience of mass comes from interactions starting with bosons in the Higgs field
  • To produce negative mass you'd need a Tachyonic field
    • Tachyonic fields do not interact with matter

Personally, I think the groundbreaking discovery that paves the way for traveling is true AI. 
-Oz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Einstein said:

Here is the Wiki article on mass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

I see lots of errors. A new error I haven't seen before is the mention of Atomic mass. The periodic table of elements lists atomic weight as a property of each element. Not mass! There seems to be a massive effort to steer students away from understanding reality using facts.

Einstein, have you experimented with the different types to reduce weight on an object?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Alamo127 said:

Einstein, have you experimented with the different types to reduce weight on an object?

Not completely. I don't completely understand yet if some types of weight are generated by motion through time. But there was a device I built that surprised me. I don't fully understand how or why it works. Check it out.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cosmo1598825723 said:

@Einstein you had a thread somewhere, years ago, talking about experiments you were doing... Was it along these lines or was that something different? Forgive me for not remembering fully... Pretty sure you had electromagnets as part of your setup.

That was probably the magnetic propulsion drive that I posted a link to in the above post.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

Not completely. I don't completely understand yet if some types of weight are generated by motion through time. But there was a device I built that surprised me. I don't fully understand how or why it works. Check it out.

 

What is that? I'm guessing two coils because of the high voltage sound. Is the middle thing a magnet? Last, it looks like it balanced out, can you change the frequency of the coil?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Calc said:

Do please tell me more about the true AI you're talking about, I'm intrigued!

True AI is one that is able to think & learn for itself. There are learning bots out there, but none that have curiosity to learn things it never thought about learning before. Right now there's always a human to guide them in the right direction. Once it "wakes up" it's intelligence would become exponential as it sought to teach itself as much as it could. 

^ The closest so far was Facebook's two machine learning bots, tasked with passing a ball back and forth with 0 instructions on language. They ended up inventing a language system of their own to complete the objective, and then were shut down.

-Oz

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alamo127 said:

What is that? I'm guessing two coils because of the high voltage sound. Is the middle thing a magnet? Last, it looks like it balanced out, can you change the frequency of the coil?

I'm remembering this from years ago. So please forgive me if you find an old post that disagrees with me now. There is a neodymium magnet between two coils of wire. I was running pulsed square waves through the coils. I had designed the electronics to delay the timing of pulses between the two coils. So one coil is being pulsed on and off at a later time than the other coil. I had made the delay time variable. But I could watch both coil pulses on an oscilloscope. On the oscilloscope I could see that the observed motion occurred at 90 degrees phase delay and a direction reversal at 270 degrees phase delay. At 0 degrees and 180 degrees no motion at all. The frequency of the pulses was very low. Below 200 hertz. I had adjusted that in a low range to avoid two much back impedance from interfering with the operation. I did try higher frequencies with a severe reduction in the observed effect.

This all came about thanks to Bob Lazar's description of how the ET's were controlling the gravity wave amplifiers. I didn't have gravity waves to play with. But I could construct something with magnetic waves. So I did with surprising results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alamo127 said:

Also, I've seen videos on angular momentum reducing the affects of gravity. Have you tried using angular momentum in your experiments?

Quite a while ago I was building a mechanical propulsion drive using gyroscopes. I did have some interesting ideas to work with. But I decided to give up because it was getting too expensive to keep going in the direction my experiments suggested. I was spinning the gyroscopes up to 30,000 rpm. When I applied a turning torque to the gyroscope the forces involved managed to break the steel shaft of the motors I was using. At 50 dollars a pop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...