Jump to content

Is anyone here trying to build a time machine?


<em>Guest</em>
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif

 

X is Where "E" = 2, div/"0" = -Z^o^ Z

 

You also must remember to correlate the calculations of point theory to the sound vibrations, resonance & frequencey coordinates in conjunction to the pulsating enrgy patterns along the earth's EMF Gridlines.

 

---p)'i4q4=T12

 

In relation to Time & Quantum mechanics, we must also remind ourselves that "Gravity" itself was just one good example pertaining to a subject thought to be well understood during the earlier part of the 20th Century based on Newtonian Physics, however one must realize that althought there was an anbundant level of enthusiasim to explore the inner-workings of our uninverse on the subatomic level, in order to learn what we were dealing with in relation to new discoveries being made, Cambridge was one of the last to agree to it, yet still heald steadfast in their antiquated beliefs in spite of proven methods to show otherwise! and to this very day we have a variety of classes being taught to our students that "omitt" the corrections to the antiquated formulas that simply were not designed to work with "Quantum Mechanics"

 

I strongly recommend you consider reading the following books...

 

"Quantum Gravity"

 

By: Lee Smolin

 

Author of "The Life of The Cosmos"

 

ISBN# 0-465-07835-4

 

"Gravitation And SpaceTime"

 

(second eddition)

 

By: Hans C. Ohanian & Remo Ruffini

 

ISBN# 0-393-96501-5

 

"Subatomic Particles"

 

(The Discovery Of)

 

By: Steven Weinberg

 

Nobel Laureate and Author of "The First Three Minutes"

 

ISBN# 0-7167-2121-X

 

"The Search For Superstrings, Symetry, and the Theory of Everything"

 

By: John Gribbon

 

ISBN# 0-316-32975-4

 

These books seemingly tie into one another, and I will often review them in my library & make connections from one pahragraph in one book, where it will be explained in more functional detail in another & visea-vesa, also I am often making connections to what has been adversley rejected in the earlier part of the 20th century, and still happening today

 

Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations.

 

It has been found that an object undergoing acceleration or one held fixed in a gravitational field would experience the same kind of asymmetric pattern in the zero-point field giving rise to such a reaction force. The weight you measure on a scale would therefore be due to zero-point energy (see gravitation).

 

The possibility that electromagnetic zero-point energy may be involved in the production of inertial and gravitational forces opens the possibility that both inertia and gravitation might someday be controlled and manipulated. This could have a profound impact on propulsion and space travel.

 

Credits:

 

http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

 

Please Note: "I am merley pointing out that many of these new cutting edge developments that "are" currently being worked on (Especially Overunity) that apply these theories of QM, are often being hampered by the same controversial processes that were involved in many heated debates decades ago, and is rather frustrating to see so much evolutionary progression within humanity on one hand, yet very little on the other in relation to dealing with organized critics that still adamantly hold steadfast to their antiquated beliefs, and perceptions in spite of realizing that it only creates another environment in which we continue getting in our own way!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

time02112,

 

You seem to be overcritical of scientific skeptisism. New theories can not be automatically accepted at face value. They must be reviewed, tested, and scrutinized. If the theory survives after such examination, then we can be reasonably sure that it is correct. We cannot accept every new theory just because it seems to be correct. I can very easily for example show in a few lines of algebra that 1+1 is not equal to 2. At first glance the algebra would seem to correctly show this. Would you believe that 1 + 1 is not equal to two? Well I hope not because 1+1 is infact eqaul too 2. But if you only knew a little algebra then you probably would not be able to detect the flaw in my algebraic proof. For this reason it is absolutely neccessary to be skeptical of revolutionary new ideas and theories in physics. This is the normal and neccessary evolution of scientific knowledge. Also the books that you mention are intended for the general reading population. These books give broad nonrigorous explainations. They are entertaining to read and they are also insightfull but they cannot be used as the basis for ones belief in a particular theory, especially when your criticizing real scientists. Breaking out the paper and pencil and doing real physics is the only way to truly understand.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif

 

Overcritical?

 

timebender (Please)

 

Oh Really, who's being just a bit overated with critisisim now? (Ahem)

 

I gave credit where credit is meritworthoy...

 

To quote..."Whith all due respect"

 

to those who have spent countless hours in the disciplines of science & physics who cannot understand the plausibility to induce reversion of Time`Travel, let alone "Time~Travel" as in being generated artificially to accelerate the effects, I don't want to imply that their calculations are inaccurate per say, and they are just plain wrong however, it is perhaps that there are a variety of new existing quantum mechanics, as well as the math behind it to show this in theory that has been either missed, or overlooked that go well above & beyond the information that they have been applying, thus explains why others find it difficult to see how it "CAN" be done!

 

Just because these ideas are rejected by others, (whom I must say are perhaps in their own right correct with respect to their equations, and their formal educational backgrounds), with all due respect, it is my contention that they might be using equations that cannot adapt to show plausibility to these new concepts, yet it does not necessarily demonstrate any less plausibility for these new concepts to be demonstrable, let me explain...it is perhaps that much of the science that many others are applying here, perhaps was not adequately designed sufficiently enough to demonstrate the plausibility for such ideas, thus in order to resolve the conflict of such issues, we need to conduct more research that involves the application of Quantum mechanics, and apply the most recent data that has been gathered to pioneer new methods to demonstrate the plausibility of these new theories.

 

A good example of the conflict of (related) issues involving the same processes that lead to the development of pioneering frontier technologies within our own history, let's compare Enrico Fermi, as to how his theories provided solutions to demonstrate the inner workings of neutrons back in 1933 which were painfully rejected by the journal "Nature" when it was first submitted there. The question that scientists were faced with during this era was, if neutrons are not composed of protons and electrons, and if there are no other electrons in the nucleus, then how are we to understand the fact that electrons are emitted by nuclei in beta radioactivity? This answer was provided of course in 1933, after the neutron was discovered, in a new theory of beta radioactivity that was developed in Rome (by none other than) "Enrico Fermi" (1901-1954)

 

Touche' timebender!

 

now if it's math you want, well I have some here for starters you might wish to check against your own limited emperical dogma if you wish.

 

Perhaps this will be more convincing.

 

The strength of a magnetic field is proportional to the inverted square of it's radius. S=1/r^2. As you can see if you decrease the radius to zero the strength would rise to infinity. Unfortunately the limit to how far you can focus a magnetic field without splitting or breaking the field is plancks length. If focus a field down to it's swartzfield radius then the force of gravity rises to sufficient strength to accelerate a mass to the velocity of light in that the strength of the gravitational field within the swartzfield radius is strong enough to keep a mass that is traveling at the velocity of light from breaking free of the gravitational pull of the singularity. The equation to find the radius a mass must be compressed to inorder to create a black hole was ,and I could be wrong here as my history is a little fuzzy, Professor Swartzfield back in the 40's. The equation he discovered goes as follows: Sr=gm/c^2 where g, is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object, and c is the velocity of light. Now keep in mind that this equation was written for energy in the form of mass like a stone, not for energy in the form of energy like a magnetic field.

 

However since Einstien showed is that energy and mass are interchangeable...e=mc^2, we can use the convert the "'m'..mass.." in gm/c^2 into it's energy equavalant and solve for the swartzfield radius for a magnetic field which is energy in the form of energy.

 

Here Goes....

 

e=mc^2

 

e/c^2=m(c^2/c^2)

 

e/c^2=m(1)

 

e/c^2=m

 

Sr=gm/c^2...m=e/c^2

 

g(e/c^2)/c^2=ge/c^4

 

I think I did the math wrong, if I am wrong then the correct equation is ge/c^2=Sr. I will get back to you on this.

 

from my partner,

 

---Edwin G. Schasteen.

 

here's more food for thought...

 

http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/timemet.gif

 

http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/tt22.gif

 

http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/Image11.gif

 

http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/kerrworm.jpg

 

Project MATHEMATICS! produces videotape-and-workbook modules that explore basic topics in high school mathematics in ways that cannot be done at the chalkboard or in a textbook. The tapes use live action, music, special effects, and imaginative computer animation. They are distributed on a nonprofit basis.

 

http://www.projectmathematics.com

 

<hr size="1" width="80%" color="#000099" align="left">"Everything you know,...is Wrong!

 

soon we shall all discover the truth."

 

http://profiles.yahoo.com/vosstech

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that both Time02112 and Timebender have brought up good points. I would have to agree that time02112 is right on account that it is necesary to think out of the box and to come up with revolutionary ideas(otherwise we will get nowhere), at the same time I would agree that these new ideas need to be scrutinized to ensure that the information is correct and the results properly interpreted. Time02112 is such a man that agrees with this as well, and it is for this reason that myself and Time02112 are getting the proper representation from the scientific community to do tests under clean laboratory environments in order to prove the principle behind the mathematics and vice-versa. After these preliminary results are obtained further exploration will result and after rigorous tests via the proper scientific procedures the conclusive results will be published using the same formal precedures that other theories and scientific proposals endure.

 

Best Regards,

 

---Edwin G. Schasteen

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time02112,

 

For the record, I am not against revolutionary ideas in physics. All the great theoretical discoveries in physics, during their time, where revolutionary. And the strength of these theories lies in the fact that they where supported by experiment and predicted experimental results that would later be shown correct.

 

I am all for speculative theoretical research. I just believe that you cannot automatically replace proven existing theory with something that seems correct but has not been put through the wringer, so too speak. Surely you must agree with me on this??

 

Proof by experiment is the ultimate arbitrater in the determination of the validity of any particular theory. However, in the case of theories for which experiments can not be immediately performed, we must look to mathematical proof. From this mathematical proof we would accept the theory conditionally until experiments prove, the validity or invalidity of the theory.

 

There is however a problem. Physics is a body of conceptual ideas that are expressed by mathematics. Physics does not exist as either purely conceptual or purely mathematical. A mathematical expression in physics must be given specific conceptual meaning or definition before it can be usefull. Now, this thing about compressing a magnetic field to produce a black hole and arguing that we can use Einstiens E=mc^2 to convert between mass and energy so as to be able to apply the swartzfield equation is speculative at best. First off, there is debate regarding what E=mc^2 really means. The consensus seems to be that the equation represents the complete conversion of matter to radiation such as in matter-antimatter annihilation, this can be shown by experiment. But there is nothing that justifies the assumption that energy has mass. The equation seems to indicate this mathematically, but there is no conceptual or experimental reasonning behind the assumption. You must be able to define the precise meaning of E=mc^2 before you can use it. It is more or less only a one way equation that describes the conversion of matter into energy but not energy into matter or mass. I would be inclined to ignore the problem of your interpretation of E=mc^2 if the rest of your argument was convincing. And it does seem convincing, however I must admit that I have never seen this Swartzfield equation before, so I will for now assume it to be correct. However, perhaps you should consider compressing an oscillating electromagnetic wave to the swartzfield radius instead of simply a magnetic field. When you spoke of a magnetic field, I assume you mean a static magnetic field such as from a permanent magnit. Electromagnetic waves carry momentum and for this reason the energy to mass argument would be more convincing for an electromagnetic field than it would for a static magnetic field which does not carry momentum.

 

Then you go on to explain how the gravitational field of the swartzfield singularity would rise to such a value that a mass would be accelerated to the speed of light and prevented from escaping. Why would the mass be accelerated to the speed of light, isn't this a violation of special relativity.

 

Finally, anyone can write down a set of fancy looking mathematical expressions without explaining what they mean or how one is to uses them. The mathematical expressions you provided in your last post are matrices containing partial differential equations. So what. What do the partial differential equations represent and what am I to do with the matrix and why is it even represented as a matrix. Please explain such details before you throw around such complex expressions. As I said above, physics does not exist as purely mathematical or purely conceptual. You must conceptually explain the mathematics or else its just that, mathematics, and not physics.

 

--timebender--

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Timebender,

 

Thankyou for the information and suggestions. The device is utilizing an electro-magnetic field not a static magnetic field. However, I must admit that I had not considered the difference between a magnetic field having lesser momentum, and an electro-magnetic field having a greter momentum. I believe that all photons and particals have momentum. I believe that the mimimal limit for momentum for a photon is 1/2h(pi) where h is the plancks constant and pi is 3.14...., but let me look up the equation again. I am still studying physics and just read this part out of a physics book on relativity.

 

I must state that we are in complete agreement on our beliefs, I most certainly agree with your ideologies. I must add that the only difference between our points of view is the difference between the information that I have concerning physics and the information that you have concerning the subjects that are currently being discussed. I hope to learn more from you and the others on this forum while we continue to discuss information via this forum.

 

Have a good day, and thanks for the reply.

 

Regards,

 

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rgrunt,

 

The equation, E=mc^2, is only correct for masses at rest. As such, you can not apply it to such things as photons. Also, there is a more general form of E=mc^2. It is the following :

 

E=(m^2c^4 + p^2c^2)^(1/2), this is the general form of the famous E=mc^2 equation. In this equation p is the momentum of the particle. If you want to assume that energy in the form of an electromagnetic wave has mass then you must use this more general equation. The momentum of a photon can be found from the following equation : p = fh/c

 

f = frequency

 

h = plank's constant

 

c = speed of light

 

also, the energy of a photon can be found from the following equation : E=hf

 

so, with the above three equations you can solve for the mass of a photon.

 

Note, also, that a photon and an electromagnetic wave are the same thing.However, a photon is particle like, and an electromagnetic wave is wave like. At low frequencies, EM radiation should be treated as a wave, at high frequencies, EM radiation should be treated as photons.

 

The energy and momentum equations I gave above assume that the frequency is high enough so that it is accurate to assume photons. However it may not be clear when to assume photons or waves. I bring this up because the energy calculations for classical electromagnetic waves may not agree with equations I have provided.

 

Also, the equations above do not apply to static magnetic fields.

 

Additionally, the assumption that photons have mass violates the special theory of relativity. Perhaps the mass variable in the previously mentioned equations represents something fundamentally different than the mass that we associate with ordinary matter. Or maybe special relativity is inaccurate for the present case. There are so many maybe's, what if's, and could be's, this can be very frustrating.....

 

In your last post you said something about there being a difference between what I know about physics and what you know about physics, and you worded this in such a way, as to imply that you knew something no one else knew. If this is the case, what is this special body of knowledge you pocess? Also, are you actually trying to build a device that would create a black hole? And finally, what is your relation to Time02112.

 

------timebender----

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Timebender,

 

Thankyou for the reply and for the equations. They were the equations that I was searching for in my last post. Right now I am on a timer so I can answer all the questions you asked in this post. I will answer them though in my next post.

 

Time02112 is my business partner. He is the founder of Tap-Ten Research Foundation International. We are currently working on projects. Also we are in the process of forming an international JSC with Faraday Labs in Russia to test and develop some of the ideas we have discussed in the forum here. Specifically pertaining to the focusing of magnetic fields to a smaller region with the intend of extracting greater quantities of electrical energy per given unit time.

 

Regards,

 

---Edwin G. Schasteen

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the poor grammar in my last post. I was in a hurry because my timer was was running out. Anyhow, I merely wanted to add that the magnetic focusing device is very simple and did not require a great deal of math to think up. However to calculate the affects of the field focusin will require the necesary math, and since I have not been educated beyond algebra, have made arrangements with Faraday Labs via JSC to test the principle and document the results using the proper mathematical descriptions.

 

Regards,

 

---Edwin G. Schasteen

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timebender,

 

I have a little more time now so I will address the other questions that you posed in you last e-mail. Concerning access to extra information pertaining to the topics we are discussing, the only difference between the information that others posses and my own are that much of my own information comes from my own theoretical model and mathematics which I had developed for them. I still have a long way to go on what I have labeled "point theory" but there is a lot of measurable laboratories experiments and extablished mathematical theorums to back up what I currently have in it's basic form.

 

For instance the S=1/e^2 is backed up by the inverse square law and also by measurments taken of electron interactions at high energies versus electron interactions at low energies. Also, the device which I had previously contracted out to a research and development firm called "Davison & Associates" conducted the research into the concepts viability utilizing thier facilities and staff of engineers and physicists. They completed the research phase and the device is currently in phase 1 development stage. The research and development firm sent me a full copy of the results of thier research which includes the proper mathematics. This is the same device that we are purueing contractual arrangements with Faraday Labs to formulate an international JSC (Joint Stock Corporation) which will be registered in America. The first project is the EMFC which deals which is the development of electromagnetic field focusing technologies. This first joint project will be a two year venture. The first year is the development of the device and the second is the patenting and mass marketing of the device.

 

Best Regards,

 

---Edwin G. Schasteen

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<font size="1" color="#FF0000">LAST EDITED ON 23-Aug-01 AT 08:57PM (EDT)</font>

 

http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif

 

Thanks Schasteen,

 

also I must recommend that you examine the kind of influence we have in relation to the caliber of our other members & associated world-wide network association, Mr. Frolov is indeed considering a joint form os International partnership arrangement that will take place @ the WTO in San Diego during the final process of reviewing our documentation, as well as producing viable means to produce the intended concept to design of a demonstratable prototype that will produce alterunity of abundant amounts of energy produced from a solid state-

 

QEM capacitant transformer. the size of one such device compared to a shoebox may produce sufficient power for a five bedroom home, while the size of a 4x4 pickup-box may produce the energy requirements for a 12 story hotel.

 

Alex Frolov is the Director of "Faraday Labs" in St. Petersburg, Russia. Please review his credentials here...

 

Website Of: Mr. Alexander V. Frolov

 

Russian Native Engineer, Inventor, & Author of many published works relating to a broad range of topics such as ...gravitation, electrogravitation, new energy, time rate control theory (time machine), reactionless propulsion, warp drive technology, plasma electrolysis, hydrogen energetics, aging problem, Tesla research, ether science, ether dynamics, n-dimensional, electric spacecraft, four dimensional conception of matter, thermogravitation, gyroscopical drive, Tesla, Chernetsky, Frolov, gradient dielectric technologies for electric space drive, warp drive, space time curvature, temporal displacement, teleportation, and DNA resonance.

 

http://alexfrolov.narod.ru

 

<hr size="1" width="80%" color="#000099" align="left">"Everything you know,...is Wrong!

 

soon we shall all discover the truth."

 

http://profiles.yahoo.com/vosstech

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please define this word ------> "alterunity"

 

It does not appear in the dictionary.

 

Also what is a "QEM capacitant transformer"

 

Can you describe it in detail. Can you email me technical schematics.

 

[email protected]

 

Is this the technology that that will be focusing EM waves to produce a black hole.

 

Also, just because this Alexander V. Frolov guy is being contracted to do work for you, doesn't mean he actually belives in your idea. If I had enough money, I could probably contract Lockheed to build me something. Is Mr. Frolov's research firm doing the work for free?

 

I have something in my garage that is relatively small and produces abundent amounts

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Scientist Alex Frolov must remain unbiased to the concept he intends to test. However research has already been completed relating to the concept via current contractual arrangements with Davison & Associates. There research physicists and engineers using some of the most advanced computer technologies available cross referenced the theoretical design with current physics relating to electromagnetism and electric theory. They could find no flaw with the theory, and as a result preceded to stage one development...contingency licensing. Also, Alex Frolov and his counterparts are paying for more then half of the research costs and doing all the work relating to development. He further ensures that once the principle has been found to be plausible via experiment in a clean laboratory environment, his Russian investors will poor unlimited funds into continued research into the design under projects owned by our research and development JSC which will be Tap-Ten Research JSC. Overunity is the action where by greater quantities of energy is obtained from a device then is expended via negentropy.

 

Hope this helps. Also cannot give details due to propietary concerns at this time. Soon I will be ab

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about that. My timer ran out and I barely had enough time to hit the "send" button before my computer shutdown. Anyhow we cannot give any technical information regarding the device bacause we are currently under contractual arrangments not to discuss the pertinent facts about the design with the public. However we are able to discuss the basic concept and/or principle. Some basic information pertaining to the concept and principle of operation are located in the archives of this forum. You may sift through the pulications by going down to the bottom of this page and search through the archived posts for on this forum for the information regarding field focusing. The information will be under Rgrunt, [email protected], or Edwin G. Schasteen.

 

Regards,

 

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to be completely honest with you. I think that the government would have the technology. It all depends on the nature of time and how much of a threat time travel really is to national security, or to the solidity of events.

 

Best Regards,

 

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

P.S. Personally, I consider the possibility on opening doorways into alternate dimensions and possibly opening trade routes with alternate worlds. What kind of trade would be determined by the level of technology they have already. What do you think?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...