I got the first post!!

Close. In perl, ^ is the XOR operator; use ** for exponents. I cleaned up the program & added units:

<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>#!/usr/bin/perl

$m = 1; # kg
$A = 1; # m
$t = 1; # s
$c = 313000000; # m/s
$pi = 3.14159265358979;

while (1) {
print "Mass [kg]: ";
$m = &lt;STDIN&gt;;
chomp $m;
if ($m == "") { exit; }
print "Frequency [Hz]: ";
$freq = &lt;STDIN&gt;;
chomp $freq;
if ($freq == "") { exit; }
$w = 2*$pi*$freq;
&amp;calc($m,$w)
}

sub calc {
$m = shift;
$w = shift;
$x = $A * sin($w * $t);
$v = $A * $w * cos($w * $t);
$a = -1 * ($w ** 2) * $x;
$F = -1 * $m * $x * ($w ** 2);
$U = 0.5 * $m * ($A ** 2) * ($w ** 2) * (cos($w * $t) ** 2);
$vavg = $w * $A;
$E = 0.5 * $m * ($w ** 2) * ($A ** 2) * (sin($w * $t) ** 2);
$Etot = 0.5 * $m * ($vavg ** 2);
$mavg = $m / sqrt(1 - ($vavg / $c) ** 2);
$tdi = $t / sqrt(1 - ($v / $c) ** 2);
$tdavg = $t / sqrt(1 - ($vavg / $c) ** 2);
$per = 100 * ($mavg - $m) / $m;
print qq~
mass of $m kg
frequency of $freq Hz ($w rad/s)
Amplitude of $A m
After $t second...
x = $x m
v = $v m/s
a = $a m/s/s
F = $F N
U = $U J
E = $E J
Etot = $Etot J
vavg = $vavg m/s
mavg = $mavg kg
tdi = $tdi s
tdavg = $tdavg s
Average mass increase: $per %

~;
}</pre><hr>

Example output:

<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>Mass [kg]: 100
Frequency [Hz]: 10000000

mass of 100 kg
frequency of 10000000 Hz (62831853.0717958 rad/s)
Amplitude of 1 m
After 1 second...
x = -6.59310333966933e-008 m
v = 62831853.0717957 m/s
a = 260285286.952149 m/s/s
F = 26028528695.2149 N
U = 1.97392088021786e+017 J
E = 858.043897335502 J
Etot = 1.97392088021787e+017 J
vavg = 62831853.0717958 m/s
mavg = 102.077855846659 kg
tdi = 1.02077855846659 s
tdavg = 1.02077855846659 s
Average mass increase: 2.07785584665892 %</pre><hr>

In this example, we see that a 100 kg mass vibrating at 10 MHz should gain about 2 kg of mass. Of course, the amplitude is 1 m, which is very impractical. At more realistic values of A, the mass increase is negligible.
 
RMT

You have posted another interesting reply. But you still appear to be one sided. I think this following statement you made appears to make my case.

And this highlights the differences in our approaches. Where I will draw on existing knowledge, and perform mathematical exercises to achieve a model to see if it can be explained, you will want to try to replicate WHAT YOU ARE PERCEIVING as true. Both methods have their place, but science gives the nod to attempting to explain anomalies with validated theories before one assumes something unique.
Click to expand...

My only concern with what you have to say is "Validated Theories". And I do believe that might be what is wrong with the scientific approach. A theory is not a fact. And you know that. Somewhere along the way an assumption is made that just cannot be validated. Yet the theory is based on that assumption. So logically a theory can be a strong possibility. But it can never be fact.

There is also another approach which I find kind of comical. Prove it wrong. How can it be wrong if the proof uses assumptions along the way? Anyway I have adopted a different approach. Prove it wrong and prove it right. In other words two opposing theories. That is what we have here. Your argument seems to hold water if you base all your observations in the crooked house. There is no horizontal or vertical visual reference in the house. Even the references you cited off the net use the crooked house as an attempt to convince any visitor that it is just an illusion. A trick of the human mind. But you'll notice my pictures aren't taken in the crooked house. And to this date, I haven't found anyone with an explanation on how this visual effect occurs away from any perceptual cues that can cause this effect within our minds. You'll notice all your references don't mention any of the altered perceptions outside the crooked house. If it doesn't fit the theory, just sweep it under the carpet. That's the part I'm interested in. The under the carpet observations. Because the under the carpet observation could be explained using Einstein's time dilated reference frame. Am I the only one that has made this connection? It's just noneuclidean space with a bit more curvature than we are accustomed to seeing. My opinion. My theory. As to the cause of this effect? Just some local nuclear material experiencing a mass change probabaly deep in the ground.

You never mentioned if you've been to the Mystery Spot. But the day I was there, there was a woman, that verified that those wooden boards, on the concrete slabs, were level. She pulled a small level out of her purse, and walked over to the boards, just to verify for herself, that the guide was not trying to trick us all. The guide asked her if she had been there before. She said yes, she was a school teacher. Her level also showed the boards were level. As I recall one board was right on and the other board was slightly off. Just look at my pics. I was very careful. You'll notice the boards are horizontal, and I am right in the middle as I take the shots. So you can reference off those boards when you look at the pics. But thanks to the internet you can go there from your armchair. It's not quite the same. But this following clip I found on youtube depicts exactly what I saw:

Mystery Spot

I don't care what you say RMT, seeing is believing. This is a stationary relativistic reference frame.
 
Haha! I can't believe I forgot about ** vs ^ That's not the first time I forgot and I doubt it'll be the last.

Thanks for the fixes and units /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

So I want to know how long a particle (or paint can) has to oscillate before it's clock will be 1 second behind mine. I'm not sure what the term should be, I'll use "cumulative time dilation" for now?

cumulative_dt* = dt0 - dt*
cumulative_dt* = dt0 - (dt0 / sqr(1-(Aw cos(wt)/c)^2))

I don't know if that's how to do it, but if it is, I still want dt0 on the left, I have no idea how to do that hehe... By now there's gotta be some software that can rearrange a math equation using drag and drop, no?
 
This borders on the phylosophical end of the time discussion, but my take is that any shift in time, no matter how miniscule, is world changing.

By shifting just a millisecond, you have changed the "Now" for the object in relation to the now for everything around it.

Get back to the basics, one of the oldest debates is whether future and past truly exist, or if there is truly only the "Now". If there is only the "Now" then you have just jumped worlds by shifting the tinyest bit.

If you can prove the time jump forward and reverse, and still have the object in the same relative universe, then you have proven the existance of forward and back time's existance.

These are no small feats!
 
I've always thought that past, present, &amp; future coexist simultaneously. This, however, is not a point easily proven.

I think of all of space and time throughout eternity as a book which we read one letter at a time. The other pages do not cease to exist just because we don't focus on them. We just filter out all but a miniscule detail of the information available to us in order to ponder its meaning intensely.

But this last point is, indeed, philosophical. For that I apologize.
 
Well Ill make it quick:

Yesterday I was born.
Today I am (your current age)
Tommorrow I die.

Dont you see what is wrong with this picture? We are accustomed to this all our lives. We think its normal to be born, grow up and die.

To me, in my opinion, I sure believe personally that there is something wrong with this as it has been for thousands of years. What makes me think of it? Its because of my experience regarding many things that are odd and out of place. Experience counts above all, but only for myself, alone.

Dont you agree, that you have at least once experienced something bizarre in your life which is out of the "norm".....?

I think we all are delusional in some way ...! : )
 
satown

we made up of time and rotation, negative rotation can be applied.
Click to expand...

Gravity appears to be taking the spot where negative rotation should be. But true negative rotation could only occur if the conditions that support negative time and negative length were present. So an object rotating in the negative direction would have to be moving in the opposite direction in time.
 
Define negative rotation, if you please (and by that I mean something other than rotation in the opposite direction about an axis...the common definition).

RMT
 
RMT

Define negative rotation, if you please (and by that I mean something other than rotation in the opposite direction about an axis...the common definition).
Click to expand...

This is just my preferred definition,
Negative rotation: Rotation in a 4 dimensional spatial manifold made up of negative length.

Also if all the length were negative, time would be flowing in the opposite direction.
 
Timelord

Could you describe this mathematically? It sounds like rubbish to me.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe a mathematical concept as rubbish. It makes it sound dirty or soiled. But I would describe the concept as a fictional mathematical concept. But then most of mathematics lies outside the world of reality anyway. My main reason for introducing the concept was because of centripetal acceleration and torque. Centripetal acceleration can approach zero, but then it increases in the positive direction as it passes zero. So there is no negative centripetal acceleration in our universe. So I reasoned that rotation or torque can only be positive in nature because of the fact about centripetal acceleration. But the really weird observation is that gravity acts as if it were negative centripetal acceleration. Because a body in orbit about the earth stays in orbit because its centripetal acceleration exactly balances against its gravitational attraction. So if gravity and negative centripetal acceleration appear to be of the same kind of animal, then it is reasonable to conclude that we have phenomena in the real universe that has its basis in the realm of negative length. So that does pave the way for using the fictional mathematical realm of negative length to describe something in the real universe. Still want to call it rubbish? Here is some more food for thought. What happens to the strength of a gravitational field if you were able to rotate the field with negative rotation?

By the way, I don't use mathematical descriptions anymore to understand the reality we exist within. Both Darby and Rainman have criticized me for doing this. But the real Einstein was my teacher. He portrayed his understanding of reality through visualizations. It works for me.
 
Centripetal force exists because of rotation. Gravity is independent of rotation.

A conceptual understanding is sufficient for celebrity scientists and laymen, but it's useless for one wishing to utilize the knowledge in a working machine.
 
Timelord

Centripetal force exists because of rotation. Gravity is independent of rotation.

A conceptual understanding is sufficient for celebrity scientists and laymen, but it's useless for one wishing to utilize the knowledge in a working machine.
Click to expand...

Just one gravity field would appear to be independant of rotation. But what about two gravity fields rotating about each other? Even so, we still can only use positive rotation. Negative rotation would allow the gravity fields to increase in intensity.

I would tend to disagree on your comment about conceptual understanding. For instance I know that a gravity field changing in intensity will covary with a change in the rate time flows. So that is something I would look for in any experimentation with gravity fields. And I do have an anomalous observation concerning the flow of time that I have observed in my experiments with gravity waves. But the real test is to see if I can take advantage of the anomaly. This weekend I will find out.
 
Again, in order to convey a meaningful message, you must append a mathematical description.

And I do have an anomalous observation concerning the flow of time that I have observed in my experiments with gravity waves.
Click to expand...

What is the anomaly, and how do you measure gravity waves when professional scientists fail to do so (or at least have great difficulty with it)?
 
Einstein,

y the way, I don't use mathematical descriptions anymore to understand the reality we exist within. Both Darby and Rainman have criticized me for doing this. But the real Einstein was my teacher. He portrayed his understanding of reality through visualizations. It works for me.
Click to expand...

You've only fooled yourself into thinking it works for you. For as I have said before your invocation of Einstein in this sense is incomplete. The real Einstein did use visualization to come up with ideas that would allow him to plumb reality's depths. But he DID NOT STOP with them as you do. If he did his science would not be science but would instead be his own musings, accessible only to himself. Einstein knew that, in the end, any and all of his theories MUST be expounded in the language of science, which is mathematics. As long as you do not follow in Einstein's steps COMPLETELY, your work and theories will only be relevant to you, and you will continue to lead yourself down false paths with your erroneously-applied terms such as "gravity waves, or that time that you did not account for Lenz's Law but instead thought you had found a gravity effect.
 
Timelord

Again, in order to convey a meaningful message, you must append a mathematical description.
Click to expand...

I do believe reality will have to be mapped out first in order to discover an appropriate mathematical approach to use. That means lots and lots of tedious experimental data gathering. Right now any mathematical representation would be just another wrong guess.

What is the anomaly, and how do you measure gravity waves when professional scientists fail to do so (or at least have great difficulty with it)?
Click to expand...

Currently I'm using an accelerometer sensor connected to my oscilloscope to observe for any kind of oscillation that occurs with electrical phenomena. This seems to be fringe area research to me. The sensor is immune to magnetic influence. There are other researchers experimenting with gravity pulses. Podkletnov comes to mind. But just recently I discovered a way to produce gravity waves. A continuous oscillation. The waveform is not symetrical. And it does not radiate very far from the source. But the magnitude of the wave I'm experimenting with is plus and minus 1.3 gees. Even that is in question because I'm recording data way outside the operating frequency range the sensor was designed to handle. Now just based on data that I have gathered so far, if gravity waves do not radiate through space, then our current mainstream theories about gravity waves are all wrong. So an incorrect theory can lead you down the wrong path. Now, on to the anomaly. I was making an adjustment to the ground plane of the voltage wave that I use to stimulate the production of the gravity wave. As I moved the ground plane to a more negative position, I noticed that the frequency of both the gravity wave and the voltage wave increased. By about 15 percent. So I disconnected the gravity wave emitter and repeated the adjustment to the voltage wave gound plane. This time there was no change in frequency. So just using logic, I am not initiating that frequency change with any of the normaly accepted methods of doing so. The gravity wave emitter has to be connected. That would suggest that those gravity waves are somehow affecting the dimension of time that the voltage wave is operating within. So I now have a new direction to pursue. Just that little observation might be all that I need to make a device that can actually effect the dimension of time. I'm currently in the process of making an addon circuit board that will electrically simulate my mechanical control for the ground plane of the electric wave. The only difference will be that I can electrically repeat the ground plane change many times a second. That's this weekends project.
 
RMT

You've only fooled yourself into thinking it works for you. For as I have said before your invocation of Einstein in this sense is incomplete. The real Einstein did use visualization to come up with ideas that would allow him to plumb reality's depths. But he DID NOT STOP with them as you do. If he did his science would not be science but would instead be his own musings, accessible only to himself. Einstein knew that, in the end, any and all of his theories MUST be expounded in the language of science, which is mathematics. As long as you do not follow in Einstein's steps COMPLETELY, your work and theories will only be relevant to you, and you will continue to lead yourself down false paths with your erroneously-applied terms such as "gravity waves, or that time that you did not account for Lenz's Law but instead thought you had found a gravity effect.
Click to expand...

I do have to point out that Einstein put many of his visualizations into a mathematical format that he had no way of knowing if it was correct or not. Math isn't going to help me go down the right path. Armchair physics is not the path to the future. I really do have to go out and see for myself. I do accept going down wrong paths as a way to determine the right path to use. Will I be successful? I don't know, but it sure is a fun hobby. The real question is, would you even believe me if I actually built a time machine?
 
As I moved the ground plane to a more negative position, I noticed that the frequency of both the gravity wave and the voltage wave increased. By about 15 percent.
Click to expand...

E, this is yet another topic interesting enough for it's own thread, but what would I know.

There could be a few reasons you saw a 15% increase in voltage. I don't completely agree with RMT that you need math to communicate your concepts, at least not at this stage. But using math to account for the 15% wouldn't be totally futile either. Searching for all the reasons voltage would jump 15% would be (for me at least) a long, error prone task. We really need a GoogleMath of some sorts that will spit out all of the known mathematical reasons for 15% jump in voltage in the blink of an eye.
 
bogz

It wasn't the voltage that increased by 15 percent. It was the frequency of both the voltage wave and gravity wave. I'm currently working on a circuit board to actually see if there is any further information to be gathered on this anomalous effect. But it would still be relavent to this thread. Initially Timelord listed some math for symetrical waveforms. But I would need some nonsymetrical waveform equations to describe the gravity wave. It has a very fast rising slope and a much slower decending slope with very sharp transition peaks. Just speculating at present, but I do think that the gravity wave is rotating in time and has both positive and negative rotation sections. That was my reason for introducing a negative centripetal acceleration force. Because it would be easier to mathematically model the gravity wave as oscillating between a centripetal force and a negative centripetal force. Since we don't really know what gravity is. A mathematical model using centripetal and anticentripetal acceleration would be an experimental mathematical approximation. But somehow time would have to be introduced as an additional variable thus causing the nonsymetrical waveform.
 
Back
Top