Temporal Divergence Meter

I don't agree that you can multiply the angle by the acceleration to nullify the acceleration. Did you make that up? The acceleration is there no matter how much you try and cover it up.
 
Good day all.
I like this forum, and I start to follow it since I renew my interests on John Titor.
When al the story come out, I was about 20 years old, I know about the story of Titor on mIRC, like many others, and soon i got interested in it, and then I lost interest on it.

some times ago, a friend of mine remember me that story, and after a couple of searches and hours psent reading, I got to this forum.

I'm not a technician, and I'm from a non-english state, so, please forgive my grammar and try to be clear :)
The thing I would like to discuss is this famous "divergence" in where Titor followers put any fact that doesn't work in his predictions.

we are talking about 2% difference between a "A system" and "B system", so if the systems are about a ball that accelerate, this 2% should be abut the velocity, or the initial or final positions of the ball... something easy i mean.
but, what if the systems are "the universe"? the 2% should be simply the lack of a particular galaxy... or something more "universal" like the fact the the water change its state a 0.000001 °C more o less respect the other system.

we are always looking at the predictions, and think what could be a difference of 2%, but about what, a difference of 2% of a crowd of 100 people, is the presence of 2 new people in one system or another... or maybe the fact that all the people have 200 cells less than the people of system B...

my personal opinion is that this 2% is totally convenient, and the information that this thing bring with it is NULL.
 
Einstein said:
You need to throw out F=MA. It is not applicable to non inertial reference frames. Centrifugal force is not an inertial force. It is the only force that opposes gravity with an effect of complete cancellation.
Click to expand...

Since when? Other than the fact that the centrifugal force is a pseudo force, not a real force, the definition of inertial force specifically includes both the coriolis (pseudo)force and the centrifugal (pseudo) force. It specifically refers to curved motion. And since when does F=ma not refer to curved motion? More important, when does anyone use that specific form of the equation (F=ma) mathematically when you have to differentiate...F = m (d^2r/dt^2). If you use radial coordinates for distance there's no problem at all making calculations for curved motion. Differential calculus is designed for such situations. Sin and Cos seem to work well when combined with radial coordinates and a defined, consistent frame of reference. Who told you these things?

You've posted some simple math here that, mathematically, is correct. So I'll further add the fact that math is the language of physics, but it is not physics itself. I recall the clown here who, oh 10 years or so ago, insisted that he was a time traveler here to report that Michio Kaku had proven that E=mc^2 is not true but C = Em^2 is true. Because there is an "=" sign between the two statements I can choose any two numbers for "m" and "E", do the plug and chug and come away with a correct math answer. It doesn't express any physical fact, however. Physically it is utter nonsense, typical of the Internet crank.

I recall earlier in this thread that a caveat made by you to members was not to believe what they are taught in school without proof. I'd add that members shouldn't believe what someone posts on the Internet without proof. The case where the poster insists that its true is not proof.

If forum members want proof that what is taught about physics in colleges and universities is correct they need do no more than look around themselves. Then I'd ask them: Does your PC work? Does your TV work? Can we put objects in orbit around the Earth? Can we talk over both wired and wireless communications networks? Do we have a GPS navigation system? If they answer yes, there's their proof. All of the above is impossible if our teaching of the physical laws of our universe is incorrect.

Choosing the proper math to describe the physics is also important. In looking at your graphic all it states is that some mass started at (0,10), moved at a constant velocity along the +X axis for some unspecified units of time (Z axis) and arrived at (12,10) constantly getting farther away from the origin (0,0) the separation of which can be calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem. As graphed its true but trivial. If an object moves along any axis of course it will get farther away from the origin and of course if you use Cartesian coordinates that separation can be calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem. But it makes no statement at all about the underlying physics.
 
Darby

You know I posted this same paper on anomalies years ago. You never commented on it back then. The only person that took an interest was Scott. He liked it. But he was a math teacher. I just figured that most people don't care too much for math.

I think it's a little more than trivial. Since it uncovers the lie that we are taught about centrifugal force. And I would have to disagree that centrifugal force is an inertial force. The force is only present with rotation. The force is always directed way from the center of rotation. And contrary to what we are taught in school, the radius does not change in relation to the center of rotation. So there is no measurable inward acceleration opposing the centrifugal force. But that is just the observable fact. An observable fact that appears to exactly mimic the behavior of gravity. Just the force direction is opposite. But if you allow a gravitational object to free-fall, it loses its weight. Weightless acceleration. The same behavior I pointed out and demonstrated with my graph for centrifugal acceleration. Of course centrifugal force only occurs in conjunction with a co-varying inertial force that is pushing something in a circular path. The two forces are not equal to each other.

What the math model does suggest is that a similar model may exist for gravity. The only requirement would be that a negative inertial force would be necessary to push something in a negative direction. The math would be sound, because gravity does exist. Just look around for the negative inertial force. And this theory would become fact real fast.

Get rid of the silly concept of mass. Mother nature shows us the correct equation for F=MA should be F=WAk where W is weight and k is the proportional constant to make the units jive.

You wanted to know who told me this stuff. Mother nature. I look there first nowadays.
 
Robot said:
Negative mass:

Negative mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"oppositely oriented acceleration for negative mass"
Click to expand...

I don't really need negative mass. Since I prefer to use actual observations rather than mass which is pure fiction to begin with. But the observations do actually exist.

On top of a Slayer Exciter coil I left the output wire loosely hanging. I held a metal rod close to the end of that output wire. A continuous spark jumps from the end of the wire toward the metal rod. In addition to that the wire is attracted to the metal rod. If that were a hose squirting out water, the hose would go the other way.
 
Most folks, including myself are comfortable using the tools they were taught. F=MA, General Relativity, Special Relativity, etc.

Regarding Math, I see it as a useful man made tool that attempts to describe reality and nature. Most of it's use in Physics is "close", but not perfect.
 
Robot said:
Most folks, including myself are comfortable using the tools they were taught. F=MA, General Relativity, Special Relativity, etc.

Regarding Math, I see it as a useful man made tool that attempts to describe reality and nature. Most of it's use in Physics is "close", but not perfect.
Click to expand...

But it has been my observation that there are numerous existing facts that could be used with much more understanding. It's like telling me not to look. Naturally I'm going to look to see what it is that you don't want me to look at. Someone is trying to hide something. But why? It's like someone dropped a bomb on the knowledge base.
 
Einstein said:
Get rid of the silly concept of mass. Mother nature shows us the correct equation for F=MA should be F=WAk where W is weight and k is the proportional constant to make the units jive.
Click to expand...

Yikes. Get rid of the "silly notion of mass" and replace it by weight? I really think that you're confused about what weight and mass are. They most certainly are not equivalent. Weight is a function of mass but mass is independent of weight. Maybe it's time to stop looking at "Mother Nature" (your personal myopic view of physics) and crack a textbook or two. As I've read your posts for the past 15 years it has always been apparent that you took, and never understood, high school physics but never advanced beyond that point. Your arguments against science come from alt-sci Internet sources that you choose to believe, not because they make any sense, but because they agree with your personal bias.

Conduct a two body experiment where both bodies (you and a 1 ton lead ball) are in a state of uniform motion such that the motion is freefall. Are both bodies weightless? Yes (if the scale used to measure their weight is also in the same state of freefall - broad hint about the meaning of weight). Are they massless? Calculate the force necessary for you to push the lead ball away from you at some velocity using the correct equation F=ma. Then using your WAky equation where W=0 make the same calculation. Which one gives the correct answer?

BTW: In both equations "A" should be "a". The convention is to use lower case for most variables, uppercase for the argument (there are exceptions but this case isn't one of them). It should also be bold, dotted or have an arrow over it indicating that it is a vector quantity (broad hint about why you can't use the equation directly to make a calculation). And k should be italic if it is used as a "constant of proportionality."
 
Darby

Conduct a two body experiment where both bodies (you and a 1 ton lead ball) are in a state of uniform motion such that the motion is freefall. Are both bodies weightless? Yes (if the scale used to measure their weight is also in the same state of freefall - broad hint about the meaning of weight). Are they massless? Calculate the force necessary for you to push the lead ball away from you at some velocity using the correct equation F=ma. Then using your WAky equation where W=0 make the same calculation. Which one gives the correct answer?
Click to expand...

Lets use a gravitational freefall. On a planet like earth with one gee of acceleration. No atmosphere. Gravitationally the objects are weightless. But are they also inertially weightless? Inertial weight only exists in a direction opposed to inertial acceleration. So apply a force between the two objects and see. I see the experiment as a way to determine if gravitational weight and inertial weight are the same thing. You better pray they are different. And that makes my whole point for using existing fact over the fiction we are taught. Its the different types of weight that exist. Can we really mix them like we do with mass?

And contrary to what you seem to believe, I don't find answers to this kind of stuff on the internet. Do experiments like what you propose using observable facts, and just maybe you might observe something new.
 
Gravity is a waveform.

Inertia is due to zero-point frames-of-reference.

You are in a room. In your point-of-reference, you are not moving.
But in point-of-reference to everything else, the solar system is helical, and the movement of the earth and time itself is toroidal.
In terms of E=MC^2, this vectorial triangle can only exist with DIRECTION. The Magnitude of Light is the Speed of Observation.
You are only as old as everything else.
You are only as old as time itself.
You are the Big Bang.
 
As Einstein pointed out, if you remove the frame of reference itself, and see that Calculus is the process of infinite summation of the infinitesimal, then if you construct a waveform of continuity with all particles, i.e., conversing from Newtonian mechanics of the macroscopic to Lagrangian mechanics to differing frames-of-reference, you would see that zero-point itself is frame-of-reference.

einsteingravity.com

This guy likes to remove the theory and look at numbers.
I have already built the theory and I have posted it justly;
You can explain EVERYTHING in terms of 5 variables;
alpha-spin, beta-spin, x-coordinate, y-coordinate, and time.
alpha-spin/beta-spin = the golden ratio, phi.

You can explain EVERYTHING in terms of Tau and The Unit Circle.
Einstein's Energy-Mass equivalence is simply without the Tau circumference-diameter natural explanation;

In terms of duodecimal:
z-1234567890xy-z
z=k
$zdz=$kdz
$zdz=$xydz
Z=p(0,1); p=(i,-i)
where p is momentum.
 
Back
Top