If any of you have really time traveled contact me
- Thread starter Quantum_Leaper
- Start date
doctorz
Chrono Cadet
Re: If any of you have really time traveled contac
To Einstein
i just send you an email , im keeping my reply to myself and the recipient
too bad , you need to be open minded , and its the rest of us who will make it because our head wasnt fill with too much study that leave room for crazy theory that we can try , and pure science is achieve by trial and error, i heard that from some science dude
To Einstein
i just send you an email , im keeping my reply to myself and the recipient
too bad , you need to be open minded , and its the rest of us who will make it because our head wasnt fill with too much study that leave room for crazy theory that we can try , and pure science is achieve by trial and error, i heard that from some science dude
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Re: If any of you have really time traveled contac
wolf
With a simple visualization. Start with momentum. P=MV or 1Kg(meter/second). It takes one second for one kilogram to travel one meter. If you double the density of space, it takes two seconds. If you double the mass it takes two seconds. Set up an equality. Of course it helps if you've had a course in algebra.
We are talking about modifying the medium of which light vibrates within. That medium may actually be different than the space light travels through.
The reported observation was that the car went invisible. I wasn't there. I would think there would be some type of distortion visible. Definitely something I want to experiment with. By the way, I do see this frequency shifting phenomena on my scope when modulating resonant electric fields.
I don't know what the properties of negative mass are. Or if more mass is an increase or decrease in spatial density. It all depends on the direction time flows for each individual phenomena.
Sorry, I guess you didn't follow Doctor Z's account when he had it posted. There is no magnetic field present from any of his coils. That is due to the way he had the coils wound. Each wire that has current running through it, also has an adjacent wire where the current runs in the opposite direction. That produces opposing magnetic fields. The net field is zero. No magnetic induction can occur with the coils co0nfigured in this fashion.
Yes, each of the fundamental forces would produce it's own form of mass this way. That would suggest 4 kinds of fundamental mass.
Yes, I agree.
I have two experiments which do support my claim that opposing forces create mass. But I'm interested in why you think it is a bad assumption. Please elaborate.
I appears your knowledge is lacking in this area. Back EMF is the Lorentz force. And yes the magnetic field from each opposing wire does cancel itself. But you can confirm this with experiment if you still doubt it.
Yes I know the current theory. But my eyebrows raised just a bit when I looked at Doctor Z's coil configuration. It raises a question for me. Is that resistance dependent upon the back EMF being present? Something has to account for draining those batteries in 15 minutes. I just happened to notice that the back EMF would not be present if the magnetic field that creates it is missing.
wolf
With a simple visualization. Start with momentum. P=MV or 1Kg(meter/second). It takes one second for one kilogram to travel one meter. If you double the density of space, it takes two seconds. If you double the mass it takes two seconds. Set up an equality. Of course it helps if you've had a course in algebra.
We are talking about modifying the medium of which light vibrates within. That medium may actually be different than the space light travels through.
The reported observation was that the car went invisible. I wasn't there. I would think there would be some type of distortion visible. Definitely something I want to experiment with. By the way, I do see this frequency shifting phenomena on my scope when modulating resonant electric fields.
I don't know what the properties of negative mass are. Or if more mass is an increase or decrease in spatial density. It all depends on the direction time flows for each individual phenomena.
Sorry, I guess you didn't follow Doctor Z's account when he had it posted. There is no magnetic field present from any of his coils. That is due to the way he had the coils wound. Each wire that has current running through it, also has an adjacent wire where the current runs in the opposite direction. That produces opposing magnetic fields. The net field is zero. No magnetic induction can occur with the coils co0nfigured in this fashion.
Yes, each of the fundamental forces would produce it's own form of mass this way. That would suggest 4 kinds of fundamental mass.
Yes, I agree.
I have two experiments which do support my claim that opposing forces create mass. But I'm interested in why you think it is a bad assumption. Please elaborate.
I appears your knowledge is lacking in this area. Back EMF is the Lorentz force. And yes the magnetic field from each opposing wire does cancel itself. But you can confirm this with experiment if you still doubt it.
Yes I know the current theory. But my eyebrows raised just a bit when I looked at Doctor Z's coil configuration. It raises a question for me. Is that resistance dependent upon the back EMF being present? Something has to account for draining those batteries in 15 minutes. I just happened to notice that the back EMF would not be present if the magnetic field that creates it is missing.
reactor1967
Quantum Scribe
Rainman is a spy.
Well I guess I throw rocks at you and you throw rocks at Einstein. Question for you though which I would be surprised if you answered it. Question - 99.9 percent of the people here can,t read mathematical postulates. Most of them can,t read schematics. The few times I posted computer code I got complaints not only in the open but in private messages and even Darby said something to me. Why then do you expect people to post such stuff when most of the people here can,t read it or understand it and when this forum clearly states at the bottom that this is a fictional forum? I am really scratching my head here trying to figure this out. I often wonder if your not working for someone trying to secure this technology. Anyone answering Rainmans call to post postulates, schematics, and other technology and if you live in the USA please read this first.
http://www.bis.doc.gov/
Also RMT you once said you like debunking but any serious person of science knows debunking is clearly outside of the Scientific Method that you also said you believed in. So if your debunking you are not doing real science. And you say you are a man of science. Scientific debate and recreating another persons work is science. You don,t debate and you don,t recreate others experiments. What is your business here because to me your not here for science. You once said the people here "were a stupid lot" those were your specific words. You also said you don,t believe in time travel. So, what is your freaking business here? Good day to you sir.
Well I guess I throw rocks at you and you throw rocks at Einstein. Question for you though which I would be surprised if you answered it. Question - 99.9 percent of the people here can,t read mathematical postulates. Most of them can,t read schematics. The few times I posted computer code I got complaints not only in the open but in private messages and even Darby said something to me. Why then do you expect people to post such stuff when most of the people here can,t read it or understand it and when this forum clearly states at the bottom that this is a fictional forum? I am really scratching my head here trying to figure this out. I often wonder if your not working for someone trying to secure this technology. Anyone answering Rainmans call to post postulates, schematics, and other technology and if you live in the USA please read this first.
http://www.bis.doc.gov/
Also RMT you once said you like debunking but any serious person of science knows debunking is clearly outside of the Scientific Method that you also said you believed in. So if your debunking you are not doing real science. And you say you are a man of science. Scientific debate and recreating another persons work is science. You don,t debate and you don,t recreate others experiments. What is your business here because to me your not here for science. You once said the people here "were a stupid lot" those were your specific words. You also said you don,t believe in time travel. So, what is your freaking business here? Good day to you sir.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Rainman is a spy.
You are going off the deep end again, Reactor...
First off, boy would I love it if you could validate that 99.9% number... because I am quite sure you cannot.
Second, you appear to have an anti-math fetish, for it clearly is clouding your memory of our prior discussions. If you go back and review you will see that both myself, and Darby, were clearly talking about physics first, and then explaining that the language of physics is mathematics.
Third, are you telling me that you cannot understand the "mathematical posulate" of Force = Time Rate of Change of Momentum (F = d(mv)/dt)? Or another way to put it: F=ma. Is this what you do not understand? Are you claiming "99.9% of the people here" cannot understand things like this? Because I think we could take a little poll, and if even you and Einstein are honest, I am afraid you would have to admit you do understand this. And please show me where I ever insinuated people has to understand or apply complex mathematics that have no relation to physics. I didn't think you could.
Emotional argument, not to mention an incorrect argument. Like you, I ignore emotional arguments. Debunking (if done right) adheres to the scientific method because it demands evidence to support a claim. You couldn't be more wrong.
Please provide a link to the post where that is. Context is everything you know. I await you providing this link.
RMT
You are going off the deep end again, Reactor...
First off, boy would I love it if you could validate that 99.9% number... because I am quite sure you cannot.
Second, you appear to have an anti-math fetish, for it clearly is clouding your memory of our prior discussions. If you go back and review you will see that both myself, and Darby, were clearly talking about physics first, and then explaining that the language of physics is mathematics.
Third, are you telling me that you cannot understand the "mathematical posulate" of Force = Time Rate of Change of Momentum (F = d(mv)/dt)? Or another way to put it: F=ma. Is this what you do not understand? Are you claiming "99.9% of the people here" cannot understand things like this? Because I think we could take a little poll, and if even you and Einstein are honest, I am afraid you would have to admit you do understand this. And please show me where I ever insinuated people has to understand or apply complex mathematics that have no relation to physics. I didn't think you could.
Emotional argument, not to mention an incorrect argument. Like you, I ignore emotional arguments. Debunking (if done right) adheres to the scientific method because it demands evidence to support a claim. You couldn't be more wrong.
Please provide a link to the post where that is. Context is everything you know. I await you providing this link.
RMT
Darby
Epochal Historian
Re: Rainman is a spy.
Ray,
The quote "were [sic]a stupid lot" only appears three times on the entire TTI website. The two obvious times that it appears is Reactor's post above and your response where you quote from his post.
The third, and ititial time it appears? From Reactor himself:
Note that I added a "sic" notation to the quote above. The reason is because the word isn't "were", it is "we're". And it appears in the original January post and in the most recent post made by Reactor. He used it twice. He didn't lift the quote "were a stupid lot" from anyone else's posts here or anywhere else. He wrote it.
He was quoting himself, no you. It's a case of self-delusion and wishful thinking.
Ray,
The quote "were [sic]a stupid lot" only appears three times on the entire TTI website. The two obvious times that it appears is Reactor's post above and your response where you quote from his post.
The third, and ititial time it appears? From Reactor himself:
Note that I added a "sic" notation to the quote above. The reason is because the word isn't "were", it is "we're". And it appears in the original January post and in the most recent post made by Reactor. He used it twice. He didn't lift the quote "were a stupid lot" from anyone else's posts here or anywhere else. He wrote it.
He was quoting himself, no you. It's a case of self-delusion and wishful thinking.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Rainman is a spy.
You are an awfully nice guy to do Reactor's own research for him, Darby. I was pretty sure I never used those words. One, because I rarely use British colloquialisms (i.e. "lot"). Two, because I am VERY careful about using the word "stupid". As a teacher, I think I have to be!
So what gives, Reactor? Some might say that now your credibility is tarnished by attributing your own quote to me. Some might also say that your entire last post is suspect and probably incorrect given the error Darby has pointed out. Note I said "some might say" this.
Would you again care to explain to us how calling for evidence to support a wild claim (i.e. "debunking") is unscientific? Do you have any trusted references that you can cite?
RMT
You are an awfully nice guy to do Reactor's own research for him, Darby. I was pretty sure I never used those words. One, because I rarely use British colloquialisms (i.e. "lot"). Two, because I am VERY careful about using the word "stupid". As a teacher, I think I have to be!
So what gives, Reactor? Some might say that now your credibility is tarnished by attributing your own quote to me. Some might also say that your entire last post is suspect and probably incorrect given the error Darby has pointed out. Note I said "some might say" this.
Would you again care to explain to us how calling for evidence to support a wild claim (i.e. "debunking") is unscientific? Do you have any trusted references that you can cite?
RMT
recall15
Dimensional Traveler
Re: Rainman is a spy and PSI OP!!!
He play that he did`t understand that fact, then he wants a way to leave YOU TTI...
Last Victim was Pam...
Quoting Pam:
<font color="red"> That is ridiculous. I simply asked you a question. When I read your response to me and how you took it I couldn't believe it. There is way too much anger here. I can't help it Einstein posted that link of you it was none of my doing.
You don't have to lock the thread rainman time I am out of here. You attack me everytime I post something. You have come in here and completely took over the forum attacking everyone who doesn't believe the way you do. This is a time travel forum its not a science forum.
Rainman I never meant you any harm. If you felt harm from anything I posted I personally apologize to you. I will leave the board because it seems I am the one everyone is angry with.
Everything I say is pulled out to distortion. I had nothing to do with the Titor story. I never gained anything from it. I don't know who was behind it either. Infact all I ever recieved from it was grief. All I did was help someone post a picture and ask him some questions and all hell was leaped upon me because of it.
I do apologize to you rainman you won't be hearing from me anymore.
yes, I am sorry I ever met John it brought nothing to me but grief.
Goodluck rainman.
Sincerely,
Pamela [/COLOR]
end quoted from
Link to TTI
So you know what his Agenda....is :eek: :eek: :eek:
He play that he did`t understand that fact, then he wants a way to leave YOU TTI...
Last Victim was Pam...
Quoting Pam:
<font color="red"> That is ridiculous. I simply asked you a question. When I read your response to me and how you took it I couldn't believe it. There is way too much anger here. I can't help it Einstein posted that link of you it was none of my doing.
You don't have to lock the thread rainman time I am out of here. You attack me everytime I post something. You have come in here and completely took over the forum attacking everyone who doesn't believe the way you do. This is a time travel forum its not a science forum.
Rainman I never meant you any harm. If you felt harm from anything I posted I personally apologize to you. I will leave the board because it seems I am the one everyone is angry with.
Everything I say is pulled out to distortion. I had nothing to do with the Titor story. I never gained anything from it. I don't know who was behind it either. Infact all I ever recieved from it was grief. All I did was help someone post a picture and ask him some questions and all hell was leaped upon me because of it.
I do apologize to you rainman you won't be hearing from me anymore.
yes, I am sorry I ever met John it brought nothing to me but grief.
Goodluck rainman.
Sincerely,
Pamela [/COLOR]
end quoted from
Link to TTI
So you know what his Agenda....is :eek: :eek: :eek:
recall15
Dimensional Traveler
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Rainman is a spy and PSI OP!!!
Brilliant, recall. Just brilliant. For as much as you post, and as much English as you must read, I don't see your sentence formation improving a whole lot.
But you go right ahead and believe that you know what my "agenda" is. If that makes you feel better about yourself, who am I to deny your little conspiracy fantasy?
RMT
Brilliant, recall. Just brilliant. For as much as you post, and as much English as you must read, I don't see your sentence formation improving a whole lot.
But you go right ahead and believe that you know what my "agenda" is. If that makes you feel better about yourself, who am I to deny your little conspiracy fantasy?
RMT
reactor1967
Quantum Scribe
Re: Rainman is a spy.
Ignoring emotional content.
Yep notice the boy comment. When ever you get backed into a corner the bully in you comes out. Another reason I say your not a man of science. And, you can,t blame your behavior on others. People who get verbally agressive or violent have already tried that and it has never been publicly accepted. The 99.9 percent number is the number of people I have seen not reply to your request for more math and if you take a long hard look at this forum it is <font color="blue"> mostly text not mathematics [/COLOR] hence most of the people here don,t do advance mathematics or understand it.
Yes I do remember in our prior discussions physics being first and that the language of physics is mathematics. I do seem to remember that coming up.
F = d(mv) / dt) is a fairly basic math equation. And I never said anything about me understanding it my point is that most of the people here can,t read what you are ask others for here and that this is a fictional forum and that the debunking your fond of is outside of the scientific method. And, the way you do it I don,t agree your using the scientific method.
Please show me where calling people names and "mirroring others behavior"(Your words) is in the scientific method. Please show where you attempted to recreate others work then show that work.
Your debunking method i,ve seen sometimes starts out ok but when your done your no longer using the scientific method.
There is nothing wrong with demanding more evidence but I,ve watched you and it looks more to me like your playing people to win an argument instead of following the scientific method.
The scientific method can be used to prove people wrong. I,ve noticed you play only one side of the argument with your mirroring behavior and demanding and very rarely attack the other side of the argument with anything specific as a true man of science would.
RAINMAN CALLING TTI MEMBERS STUPID AND SAYING THEY HAVE A LOW IQ POST.
<font color="red"> If im not mistaking RMT lost it here and went off the deep end he is so fond of. [/COLOR]
RMT when you have more than one person saying the same things about you that is a really big clue that you need to accept their words as constructive critism rather than a personal attack. At least look at the fact that you may have a public relations problem or that you come off a specific way to other people.
My closing advice to you is to try to attack the other side of peoples arguments with specific information maybe using the math and physics your fond of. Lets see you show some work that says to someone they are wrong.
There is nothing wrong with demanding evidence and not believing anything till that person gives that evidence. But at that point, if that is as far as your going to go with it, then that is where your scientific method / your debunking has ended. In a debate or scientific debate when one person can no longer prove the other person wrong and the other person provided something to back up their claim then the claiment is the victor and the person debunking the claiment lost by giving up or by default. At that point is where your behavior mirroring, name calling, and dogmatic behavior turns into a argument and where the conversation is no longer following the scientific method. And sometimes where you turn into a bully. You can use the prove it stunt all you want but if your not putting forth good reason why the other person is wrong and the other person is putting forth good reason why they are right then you lost they won and the debate is over. Unless you want to put forth proof the other person is wrong you have not debunked or used the scientific method to prove that person wrong. Yes their work may not be accepted by and large but that is outside of the fact(s) your trying to debunk. Well enough of my deep end for now. Im going to go play like a good little boy.
Ignoring emotional content.
Simple math im sure a lot of people can understand. Start throwing up very complex stuff and now they start scratching their heads and skipping onto something they can understand. To back up my point go back to the many times you have asked people to do this and how many times did they do it? Not very often. What you ask people for here most people that are members here can,t understand. And, you ignored the fact that this is a fictional forum.
Yep notice the boy comment. When ever you get backed into a corner the bully in you comes out. Another reason I say your not a man of science. And, you can,t blame your behavior on others. People who get verbally agressive or violent have already tried that and it has never been publicly accepted. The 99.9 percent number is the number of people I have seen not reply to your request for more math and if you take a long hard look at this forum it is <font color="blue"> mostly text not mathematics [/COLOR] hence most of the people here don,t do advance mathematics or understand it.
Please show where I said I had a anti-math fetish. My memory is clouded in that regard.
Yes I do remember in our prior discussions physics being first and that the language of physics is mathematics. I do seem to remember that coming up.
F = d(mv) / dt) is a fairly basic math equation. And I never said anything about me understanding it my point is that most of the people here can,t read what you are ask others for here and that this is a fictional forum and that the debunking your fond of is outside of the scientific method. And, the way you do it I don,t agree your using the scientific method.
Please show me where calling people names and "mirroring others behavior"(Your words) is in the scientific method. Please show where you attempted to recreate others work then show that work.
Your debunking method i,ve seen sometimes starts out ok but when your done your no longer using the scientific method.
There is nothing wrong with demanding more evidence but I,ve watched you and it looks more to me like your playing people to win an argument instead of following the scientific method.
The scientific method can be used to prove people wrong. I,ve noticed you play only one side of the argument with your mirroring behavior and demanding and very rarely attack the other side of the argument with anything specific as a true man of science would.
RAINMAN CALLING TTI MEMBERS STUPID AND SAYING THEY HAVE A LOW IQ POST.
<font color="red"> If im not mistaking RMT lost it here and went off the deep end he is so fond of. [/COLOR]
RMT when you have more than one person saying the same things about you that is a really big clue that you need to accept their words as constructive critism rather than a personal attack. At least look at the fact that you may have a public relations problem or that you come off a specific way to other people.
My closing advice to you is to try to attack the other side of peoples arguments with specific information maybe using the math and physics your fond of. Lets see you show some work that says to someone they are wrong.
There is nothing wrong with demanding evidence and not believing anything till that person gives that evidence. But at that point, if that is as far as your going to go with it, then that is where your scientific method / your debunking has ended. In a debate or scientific debate when one person can no longer prove the other person wrong and the other person provided something to back up their claim then the claiment is the victor and the person debunking the claiment lost by giving up or by default. At that point is where your behavior mirroring, name calling, and dogmatic behavior turns into a argument and where the conversation is no longer following the scientific method. And sometimes where you turn into a bully. You can use the prove it stunt all you want but if your not putting forth good reason why the other person is wrong and the other person is putting forth good reason why they are right then you lost they won and the debate is over. Unless you want to put forth proof the other person is wrong you have not debunked or used the scientific method to prove that person wrong. Yes their work may not be accepted by and large but that is outside of the fact(s) your trying to debunk. Well enough of my deep end for now. Im going to go play like a good little boy.
reactor1967
Quantum Scribe
How I would do Doctorz\'s work
reactor1967
Quantum Scribe
Re: How I would do Doctorz\'s work
Yeah, I told doctorz the first time I don,t spell check my work someone would tell me about it. Thank you.
Yeah, I told doctorz the first time I don,t spell check my work someone would tell me about it. Thank you.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Re: If any of you have really time traveled contac
wolf
Not at all. I think mass and spatial density are the same thing. I made it very simple to set up. But it is apparent algebra is not your thing. So let me set it up for you.
P= Momentum = mv = Kilogram(meter/second)
m= kilograms
v= velocity = meter/second
k= spatial density = meter/meter
k is just a spatial density constant which is usually one. But for our hypothetical scenario we will choose another value besides one.
So P=mvk is or new momentum formula. Technically the same as the old with a hidden constant showing.
P=2kg(meter/second)(meter/meter) or P=kg(meter/second)(2meter/meter)
In the first example mass is doubled. In the second example spatial density is doubled. Both yield the same result. This to me has always been hypothetical. But Newton came up with the concept of mass. So even though Kg=meter/meter is not dimensionally correct. If you changed the Kg back to what it was before Newton messed with it, it would be meter/meter.
wolf
Not at all. I think mass and spatial density are the same thing. I made it very simple to set up. But it is apparent algebra is not your thing. So let me set it up for you.
P= Momentum = mv = Kilogram(meter/second)
m= kilograms
v= velocity = meter/second
k= spatial density = meter/meter
k is just a spatial density constant which is usually one. But for our hypothetical scenario we will choose another value besides one.
So P=mvk is or new momentum formula. Technically the same as the old with a hidden constant showing.
P=2kg(meter/second)(meter/meter) or P=kg(meter/second)(2meter/meter)
In the first example mass is doubled. In the second example spatial density is doubled. Both yield the same result. This to me has always been hypothetical. But Newton came up with the concept of mass. So even though Kg=meter/meter is not dimensionally correct. If you changed the Kg back to what it was before Newton messed with it, it would be meter/meter.
doctorz
Chrono Cadet
Re: Rainman is a spy and PSI OP!!! and a Troll
man i never tought we would go off topic by so far , hey thanks everyone for your input negative or poisitive , at least now im sure who will be time travelling soon and who will remain with the sheep heard , btw rainmantime did you ever tought of using an hdr it would help a lot with your spirituality
give it a try you might enjoy
cheers
Dr z
man i never tought we would go off topic by so far , hey thanks everyone for your input negative or poisitive , at least now im sure who will be time travelling soon and who will remain with the sheep heard , btw rainmantime did you ever tought of using an hdr it would help a lot with your spirituality
give it a try you might enjoy
cheers
Dr z
Re: If any of you have really time traveled contac
I have no problem with algebra or any other form of math. But you have imagined a new quantity called "spatial density". You see, density in the normal sense is defined by rho = m/V and has units of [mass]/[volume] such as g/cm^3 or kg/m^3. If you want anyone to believe your new concept you really should create a new term for it and devise experiments and clear hypotheses to test the idea. As far as i can tell you've pulled this concept out of thin air or other places i dare not think. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I have no problem with algebra or any other form of math. But you have imagined a new quantity called "spatial density". You see, density in the normal sense is defined by rho = m/V and has units of [mass]/[volume] such as g/cm^3 or kg/m^3. If you want anyone to believe your new concept you really should create a new term for it and devise experiments and clear hypotheses to test the idea. As far as i can tell you've pulled this concept out of thin air or other places i dare not think. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif