Groundbreaking Discovery To Make Time Machines

Calc

Temporal Novice
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.

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Calc]Could you elaborate on the concept of mass being an example of make believe 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.
 
'Einstein]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 said:
Oh I see, thank you for explaining!
 
'Einstein]Thus the concept of mass is just make believe. [/QUOTE]What would happen if the derived calculation of weight (based on gravity) - is make believe 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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[QUOTE='TimeTravelResidue]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?
[/QUOTE]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.

 
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?

 
[QUOTE='TimeTravelResidue]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?
[/QUOTE]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.

 
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.

 
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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@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.

 
[QUOTE='Alamo127]Einstein, have you experimented with the different types to reduce weight on an object?
[/QUOTE]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.




 
Last edited by a moderator:
[QUOTE='Cosmo1598825723]@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.
[/QUOTE]That was probably the magnetic propulsion drive that I posted a link to in the above post.

 
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?

 
Back
Top