What could be brought back as proof of time travel

so, are you saying that current physics cannot be correct via pure luck, or coincidence? how do you know this?
Click to expand...

No. As Ray pointed out, it isn't random luck or simple guesses. The physical theories make specific predictions and the predictions are born out by experimentation.

As an examle of what I mean by new physics must contain the old physics as a limiting situation is this:

Newton's definition of force is F = ma. The force is proportional to mass times acceleration. That equation worked extremely well for two hundred years. But by the middle of the 19th Century there were some problems discovered in E & M experiments that were somewhat at odds with the equation. By 1905 Einstein solved the problem.

In Newton's theory mass is a constant. It never changes. In Einstein's theory mass varies as a function of relative velocity. Add in the gamma factor and Newton's equation works out correctly. In situations where the velocity is close to zero relative to the speed of light you can drop the gamma correction entirely. In other words, you can derive Newton's equation for force from Einstein's equation for force. If you could not do so then Einstein's theory would be completely wrong because we already know that in the limit as velocity tends to zero Newton was correct.
 
In Newton's theory mass is a constant. It never changes. In Einstein's theory mass varies as a function of relative velocity. Add in the gamma factor and Newton's equation works out correctly. In situations where the velocity is close to zero relative to the speed of light you can drop the gamma correction entirely. In other words, you can derive Newton's equation for force from Einstein's equation for force. If you could not do so then Einstein's theory would be completely wrong because we already know that in the limit as velocity tends to zero Newton was correct.
Click to expand...

so physicists knew that something was missing out of the equasion, then they added something and got a definitive answer. what is missing now?

are you one hundred percent correct that physics is structured correctly? i understand that it has to be correct, but, are you sure that is not just a shell?
 
so physicists knew that something was missing out of the equasion, then they added something and got a definitive answer. what is missing now?
Click to expand...

Yes. Something was missing because the experiments under specific circumstances didn't work out correctly. The assumption in classical physics that both time and mass are constants measured to be the same for all obervers under all circumstances was the problem. The assumptions were incorrect.

What's missing now is a description of gravity that satisfies both general relativity and quantum mechanics. That's a tough one. Einstein worked on the problem for 50 years and didn't solve it. Together people have been working on the problem for 100 years. Still no solution. The big problem is QM. At the atomic level gravity is so weak that it is dwarfed into virtual non-existence by the EM and strong nuclear force by a factor of 10^42. In atomic and particlle physics gravity is totally ignored in the reactions because it plays no observable role. Yet it plays a huge role in macro physics because in the macro world the EM force tends to cancel itself because the + and - charges come in equal numbers while gravity appears to have just one "flavor" - attraction.

So there's the challenge. In one case, gravity is completely irrelevent yet in the other case it dominates. Both theories are so accurate and complete (within their domains) that there has never been an experiment that showed either to be wrong - not one, ever. But they are not correct. There has to be a third theory that combines the two in a consistent manner, gives a correct description of gravity and which also expands their domains.

are you one hundred percent correct that physics is structured correctly? i understand that it has to be correct, but, are you sure that is not just a shell?
Click to expand...

We're 100 percent sure that our understanding of physics is wrong. We do not have the complete picture. But the picture that we do have is correct within the limits of its defined domain. How many times do I have to repeat that all scientific theories are approximations of reality? To the best of our understanding of physical laws, and especially quantum mechanics, every future theory will still be an approximation of reality with an expanded limit on its domain.
 
What's missing now is a description of gravity that satisfies both general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...

If they ever find it then it is my belief that this information will not be shared with the mainstream scientific communicty and will be classifed as top secret.
 
Reactor,

If they ever find it then it is my belief that this information will not be shared with the mainstream scientific communicty and will be classifed as top secret.
Click to expand...

The problem with this belief is that it is one-sided. One-sided in that you are not cleared for such information and as such you have no idea if the things you THINK are known and classified really are. I cannot help you deal with this. A person who is cleared for such information, and deals with pieces of it, knows very well why any of it that is classified is kept so. I am unable to help you experience that because of vows I took to protect my country's secrets. We both may not like it, but the reality is it protects not only both of us, but so many others of our fellow countrymen.

What I hope I can help you understand is why classifying information is not only good, but makes sense to protect many people. The bare fact is that ANY technology can be used for good or evil. We have discussed that at length on this site, when we talk about how it is your intention for how you use knowledge in your life that determines whether you "do good" or "do evil". If the US Government were to simply release any and all high technology that it develops, without concern for how people who wish to destroy our country could use it against us, that would be acting irresponsibly towards our Constitution, but more importantly to we the people.

In another post here, HDRKID calls attention to the very real fact that Al Qaeda is actively trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. This is another case where some people in the world wish to use high technology to kill other people and destroy their way of life. So if you can understand this, and you still think it is a "bad thing" for the US Government to keep some things secret........

RMT
 
The problem with this belief is that it is one-sided. One-sided in that you are not cleared for such information and as such you have no idea if the things you THINK are known and classified really are. I cannot help you deal with this. A person who is cleared for such information, and deals with pieces of it, knows very well why any of it that is classified is kept so. I am unable to help you experience that because of vows I took to protect my country's secrets. We both may not like it, but the reality is it protects not only both of us, but so many others of our fellow countrymen.

What I hope I can help you understand is why classifying information is not only good, but makes sense to protect many people. The bare fact is that ANY technology can be used for good or evil. We have discussed that at length on this site, when we talk about how it is your intention for how you use knowledge in your life that determines whether you "do good" or "do evil". If the US Government were to simply release any and all high technology that it develops, without concern for how people who wish to destroy our country could use it against us, that would be acting irresponsibly towards our Constitution, but more importantly to we the people.

In another post here, HDRKID calls attention to the very real fact that Al Qaeda is actively trying to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. This is another case where some people in the world wish to use high technology to kill other people and destroy their way of life. So if you can understand this, and you still think it is a "bad thing" for the US Government to keep some things secret........
Click to expand...

True, but technology like science can only be kept under wraps for so long. Now, AlQaeda with anti-gravity technology and a nuke that would be real scary. If someone came back in time with this technology and displayed it or posted it im very sure you would turn them in so that to act responsibly toward our Constitution and more importantly to we the people. Please don,t take that the wrong way but from reading your post and seeing you be loyal to your country I take it that if you saw a real time traveler would you not turn that person in to the goverment to protect your country? Real power in the hands of one person is a dangerous thing as you pointed out.

===================================================================================

Well I will take your silence as a yes. I knew there was more to you than just scientific proof. Good day chief.
 
ruthless,

so, are you saying that current physics cannot be correct via pure luck, or coincidence? how do you know this?
Click to expand...

I've given this one some more thought and have been trying to formulate an example that you can work through to see how real scientific discovery comes about and that its not just pure luck or chance.

Give this one a try and see how well you do. You've gained enough general physics knowledge over the past two years so I believe that you can work through it:

Imagine that you're Galileo circa 1590. You know that he was working with balls rolling down inclines, falling objects, acceleration and gravity. Think about the rules that he discovered. Don't worry about doing any math here. Just picture the event described and see how it should work according to Galileo's discoveries.

Now, Galileo, consider a pendulum. The weight at the end of the rod is 50 grams. You pull the weight back, say 20 degrees, and let it swing freely for a complete cycle. Assume that there is no air resistence/friction and that the fulcrum is an ideal bearing - its frictionless for all intents and purposes during one or two cycles.

The weight swings to the bottom and starts up the other side. Will it go farther, the same or less than 20 degrees? Why?

Now double the weight to 100 grams and swing the pendulum from the same 20 degree mark.

Will the pendulum swing faster and go farther than the 50 gram experiment? Why?

Don't Google pendulums. Galileo didn't have the Internet.
Don't do any physical experiments yet. Just think it through using the knowledge you already have about Galileo's experiments with acceleration and freefalling bodies. Your conclusions will be your hypothesis. After you have the hypothesis you can then test it against a real pendulum (experiment).

Once you get it right you will have discovered something new by extending and generalizing the knowledge that you already have. And that's how scientific discovery works in the real world. Its not pure luck or random.
 
Now, Galileo, consider a pendulum. The weight at the end of the rod is 50 grams. You pull the weight back, say 20 degrees, and let it swing freely for a complete cycle. Assume that there is no air resistence/friction and that the fulcrum is an ideal bearing - its frictionless for all intents and purposes during one or two cycles.

The weight swings to the bottom and starts up the other side. Will it go farther, the same or less than 20 degrees?
Click to expand...

my guess is that it would move less than 20 degrees.

Why?
Click to expand...

my guess is that it that gravity would not let it go back to its normal position. the energy would eventually dissipate.

Now double the weight to 100 grams and swing the pendulum from the same 20 degree mark.

Will the pendulum swing faster and go farther than the 50 gram experiment?
Click to expand...

my guess is no. it may momentarily swing faster on the down swing, but it will also momentarily swing slower on the up swing.

Why?
Click to expand...

gravity.

Don't Google pendulums. Galileo didn't have the Internet.
Click to expand...

i didnt, but i already knew what a pendulum was.

now, i either got it totally right, or totally wrong. lets see...

The simple gravity pendulum[4] is an idealized mathematical model of a pendulum.[5] [6] [7] This is a weight (or bob) on the end of a massless cord suspended from a pivot, without friction. When given an initial push, it will swing back and forth at a constant amplitude.
Click to expand...

so, i guess i was wrong.

Once you get it right you will have discovered something new by extending and generalizing the knowledge that you already have. And that's how scientific discovery works in the real world. Its not pure luck or random.
Click to expand...

well, i guess you are right. i still feel like, at the very least, some variables are missing from physics.

Pendulum_animation.gif


its still hard for me to believe that this thing will go forever. thats kinda amazing. ill have to test that one out.
 
Ruthless:

There is a good exiperment I found on the internet one time called bending space-time in the basement. Under a painters latter a stick is suspended in mid air by a string and balanced very well. Now, you can put two objects close to the stick and the stick should turn(not swing) to the left or right to the bigger object. It is said this is for gravity reasons. It is called a torshin bar (Probably misspelled.) experiment. For testing gravity between specific objects mainly large ones this seems the way to go. Also, I think gravity can be tested with a scale and then there is the speed test where you drop something and clock its speed as it comes to the ground. On earth there is an acceleration of 32 feet per second. There are two ways to go in possible theory(s) on gravity. 1. the particle way believing it is caused by some type of particle like the graviton. 2. the EMF way which I showed an example in another post in the discussion section which is of my own belief. I actually believe that gravity is caused by both particles (Not the graviton) and by EMF. That they both work together to create gravity. Well thats my input.
 
Galileo (ruthless),

Let's pull back from the pendulum for a moment and think only about your experiments. You've been rolling balls down inclines and dropping balls off roofs and observing their behavior. Do you remember the time you dropped two balls of unequal weight off the roof at the same time? What happened? Which one hit the ground first? Or did one hit the ground "first"?
 
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."


"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."


A. Einstein
 
they both fell at the same rate. terminal velocity, or something like that.
Click to expand...

OK. We're getting somewhere with our attempt to advance science circa 1590.

Now back to the pendulum, experiment #2 (we'll return to experiment #1 after we work through this one). You increased the weight on the pendulum from 50 grams to 100 grams.

Galileo, based on your earlier experiments with falling balls can you now form a working hypothesis about how the pendulum will react if you increase the weight? Will the heavier weight swing faster and go farther than the lighter weight?
 
Galileo, based on your earlier experiments with falling balls can you now form a working hypothesis about how the pendulum will react if you increase the weight? Will the heavier weight swing faster and go farther than the lighter weight?
Click to expand...

my guess would be that gravity nullifies the effect of mass in a pendulum experiment.

you always know how to make me feel like a third grader. lol
 
my guess would be that gravity nullifies the effect of mass in a pendulum experiment.
Click to expand...

OK, right now we're not working on how it happens, just what happens. Remember the fable about dropping two balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa. No matter how much the difference in weight you observed that they accelerated and fell at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time.

With your pendulum, are you, in effect, dropping a weight once you let go and let it swing? If you change the weight is it possible that you'll get the same effect as you got when you dropped the balls from the building? Maybe that's should be your hypothesis - the period of a pendulum for a given length of the rod is the same irrespective of the mass of the weight.

Now's the time to do some experiments. A 2 oz and 4 oz sinker and 15-18 inches of leader will do the trick. GIve it a try. Then we can go back to experiment #1.

Experiment #1, thinking about how high the weight will go on the second quarter of the cycle is a real butt kicker as far as making new discoveries in 1590.
 
Back
Top