swiftinfo Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Good day folks, I just ran some calculations using t=t0(sqrt(1-(v^2/c2) and I came to a startling conclusion! We, manipulate time EVERY DAY OF OUR EXISTENCE. That's right, the fact that we can manipulate ANYTHING constitutes manipulation of time. Here's what happens: You're at the train station having a tearful good bye with your loved one. As the train begins to speed away, taking her loving arms away from you, you blow her a kiss and watch as the train takes your loved one away from you at .05c. Now, on the train, your loved one experiences one minute of travel time. You also watch the train for one minute. Both of you experience a lapse in time. To you, it looks like the train has been speeding away for one minute, and according to relativity, that means that your loved one has only been watching you for 51.96 seconds. Your loved one, having been watching you for one minute, thinks you've only been watching for 51.96 seconds also, because to her, you look like you are speeding away. so what happened to the other 8.04 seconds? This is where imaginary time comes into play. What you both experienced was a complex or hypotenusal second. Each "observer" exprienced 51.96 seconds of real time, and 30 seconds of imaginary time, the hypotenuse being equal to one second. What I have discovered is that the magnitude of c equal to the speed of an object is equal to the portion of imaginary time that is experienced by the observers, shown by the following equations: where: t0 = 1 minute v = 0.5c c = 1c t = 1 (sqrt 1-(0.5^2/1^2)) t = 1 (sqrt 1-(0.25/1)) t = 1 (sqrt 0.75) t = 1 (0.866) t = 0.866 therefore: since h^2=x^2+y^2 and x = .866 1^2 = 0.866^2 + y^2 1 = 0.75 + y^2 -0.75 -0.75 ------------------- 0.25 = y^2 y = 0.5 Thus, the value of the imaginary time experienced by both observing parties is equal to the magnitude of c of the moving object in which the passenger is traveling. It works for other values as well... I checked the theory with 0.122c and got the same results. y was still equal to 0.122 minutes. Furthermore, if we could find a way to change the temporal trajectory of an object so that the temporal trajectory was perpendicular to the rest of the object's surroundings, the object would suddenly become frozen in space and instantly fly away at the speed of light in some undetermined spacial direction, irretrievable by any known means. @1c, t = 0 which means that the imaginary time experienced by the passenger is equal to 1, or i. Thus, in order to change the temporal direction of an object, one must change said object's speed, and in order to change an object's speed, one must change the object's temporal direction. Any euclidian machine, or for that matter, anything that is capable of changing the physical state of an object (including one's own body) is also dually capable of manipulating time. One would conclude therefore, that changing an object's temporal direction ninety degrees would require the same amount of energy necessary to accelerate the same object to light speed. So now it's not just a light barrier, it's a time barrier. So, as for time travel, in order to send an object BACK in time, the object must in fact, be accelerated BEYOND the speed of light. For to continue to accelerate an object beyond the speed of light is to begin to bend it's temporal trajectory backward in real time as you begin to pull it away from its imaginary trajectory. Once an object reaches 1.414c, it's temporal trajectory will be EXACTLY OPPOSITE of an observer at its starting point, shown by the following equations: t = 1 (sqrt (1 - (1.414^2/1^2)) t = 1 (sqrt (1 - (2/1)) t = 1 (sqrt (1 - 2)) t = 1 (sqrt (-1)) t = i therefore, now that the passenger is experiencing i minutes of real time, she is also experiencing negative one minute of imaginary time. Thus, the real becomes the imaginary. To summarize what we've covered so far: [email protected] = 1 + 0i [email protected] = 0 + i [email protected] = i - 1 thus, the real portion of the complex temporal value at 1.414c is equal to negative one, which means, we have succesfully shown what it will take to cause an object to reverse its temporal trajectory: The object MUST be accelerated to 1.414 times the speed of light in order to reverse its natural temporal direction. It's temporal trajectory will in fact form a semi circle. Therefore, going back in time will not be any kind of instantaneous process. It would in fact take 100 years to travel back in time 100 years, and it's a one-way trip. The fact that we have not met any time travellers is likely because it is impossible, or if not, extremely DIFFICULT to return to the future. That being said, let's accelerated our object a little more, shall we? At 1.732c, the complex value of t gets even weirder... [email protected] = 2i - 3i = -1i Therefore, the object would be stationary in real time, whilst traveling backwards in imaginary time. The "observed time" to the passenger is actually one negative minute of imaginary time. According to the same paradigm, at 2c, The object is once again following a "real" timeline. So that changes the whole "Warp Factor" paradigm. For temporal safety reasons, the following nine speeds form a "warp safety" paradigm: Warp 0 = 0c Warp 1 = 2c Warp 2 = 2.82c Warp 3 = 3.46c Warp 4 = 4c Warp 5 = 4.47c Warp 6 = 4.89c Warp 7 = 5.29c Warp 8 = 5.65c Warp 9 = 6c Warp 17 = 8c Warp 33 = 10c Kind of disappointing isn't it? Is it just me, or did the Universe just seemingly become a much, much larger place that we had previously thought? To summarize everything I've discussed so far, here is my temporal equation for complex relativity: t = sqrt (ti^2 + (t0 sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) where: t = value of complex time ti = value of imaginary time t0 = value of measured time v = speed c = speed of light. The equation will come out to a complex number. I'm open to other people's thoughts on this. We may just have something here. Also, this real time/imaginary time puzzle is only two thirds of the story. There is another temporal dimension that is designed to create and destroy the universe that it will continuously recycle all of its energy like a perpetual motion machine. If anyone knows how to manipulate three dimensional polar coordinates, please inform me. If anyone would like to par-take in a serious study of temporal mechanics and complex relativity, send an e-mail to: [email redacted] and I will create an exclusive mailing list on the subject. Copyright 2003, Dan R. Mohammed, All Rights Reserved. Topics may be discussed, but the contents of this posting and all other postings of Dan R. Mohammed are to be construed as the intellectual property of the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

dimiourgos Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 What will be the [hysical meaning of the complex time??? Time can have only Real number part. I'm open for your thouts but I want to say that the same coclution is coming easier if you study Quantum physics. Quantum space there's is no need to go faster than light to travel in time or cross great distances. You need to change the quantum of space and thus that of time. Every thing you do you get a mT where mEN and T is the local time q. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

swiftinfo Posted March 29, 2003 Author Share Posted March 29, 2003 All things are relative, right? Ok... here's where I came up with the idea for complex time: Einstein's equation: t = to(sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) tells us that an object's relative time is inversely proportional to its speed. but a passenger riding that object will observe the same contraction of time relative to his observer on the "stationary object". So where does the difference go? One must only conclude that there are two temporal dimensions at work here. Which makes sense... space is three dimensional, why not time as well? When one inserts values of v > c = 1 into Einstein's time equation, one gets an imaginary number, or "x(i)". Most physicists over the past century have simply dismissed this phenomenon as superluminal flight being "impossible" because there simply can't be an imaginary value of time. However, if we consider that there could in fact be a SECOND temporal dimension, this phenomenon starts to make perfect sence. So therefore, to properly quantize time, one must use THIS equation: t = (ti^2 + (to(sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))))^2) The above equation is a fusion of Einstein's relative time equation and the pythagorean theorem. In order to determine the value of ti, one must use THIS equation: ti = (t^2 - (to(sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))))^2) The really really interesting fact is that if you actually plug some numbers into this equation, you will find, over and over again, that ti = v. Imaginary time is equal to an object's velocity! Strange, isn't it? Now how do I justify a third dimension of time? Well... you need to be able to observe time FROM a third temporal dimension in order to observe a two dimensional, complex value. Now then, onto your concerns about quantum physics and the "shortening" of space: Again, all things are relative. Length is too. When an object accelerates, its relative length parallel to its vector gets compressed in the same proportions as time: l = lo(sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) However, length is also three dimensional. But again, when one plugs in values v > c = 1 into the relative length equation, we AGAIN get imaginary values. This means that length ALSO has imaginary (or metaphysical) counterparts which must be accounted for. Since real length is three dimensional, imaginary length must also be three dimensional. So when you say that in quantum physics, in order to cross vast distances through space, one must in fact, bend space in such a way that the distance to your destination is "shorter", you're simply stating the obvious. When an electron is accelerated to close to the speed of light through a TWO MILE particle accelerator, the apparent distance traveled by the electron (from the electron's perspective) is only a few inches. So my friend, in order to change the apparent distance between two objects, one must in fact accelerate the object which is to make the transition. This could be interesting. If we accelerate our "space craft" to half the speed of light, we only have to travel a little over four fifths of the distance to get actually get to our destination because the relative distance will become compressed. This is something I never considered before. Thanks for pointing that out! Best Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

dimiourgos Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 There is no need and no proof that anything can travell faster tha light. And the problem isn't just the imaginary or the real part of the time number in that. But the gamma factor (the famous root) is applyad also in mass so any object that hass mass greater that zero (all exept of those created in the LS) get an infiniti mass. Now even if we overlook that there is something more troubleing you cannot use eistein theory if light speed isn't the top limit. Because all of the theoriom r base on just that you have a top speed and all else are slower than that. I could use math if you like but it will just fill this page up. But let's say even that after all that you want to break the equation and use it with ftl speeds you get the complex number but as you sould know in fisics all complex number are tranformed in Real number(most electronics do that) or you use it Z and Z bar (quantum mechanics) and adress it a possibility (we say that the wave equation have the infos we need and we extrack from it Real values)So the problem remains. There is no meaning to say i have 3+i4 sec!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

mantanz Posted April 6, 2003 Share Posted April 6, 2003 Electronic signals can be sent faster than light. I know that because I believe everything I read hehehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

dimiourgos Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 their is the cherenkov radiation tha is faster than light but it is faster than light inside an mater not in the void in the void is the fastest light speed. The speed of light c is mesoured in the void and that is the apper limit in velocity. So inside other materials yes you may exide the light speed for that material but not the light speed in the void Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Darby Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Dan, Your proof is incomplete which is why you think that there is some time missing which you label as imaginary. There are two perspectives from which to view this event. The first perspective is from the POV of the stationary frame (which we so label but understand that it is an arbitrary label in STR): From the stationary frame we see a moving object and calculate its velocity relative to us. We arbitrarily state that the object is moving along the X axis in the positive direction. We then apply the gamma factor from our Lorentz Transformation and make a statement about how clocks and rods appear to us in that frame. We can also switch perspectives and view the same situation from what we originally labeled the moving frame. From that frame we can consider it to be stationary and label the originally stationary frame as moving. However we see that frame as moving in the opposite direction along the X axis. We again apply the gamma factor and make a statement about rods and clocks. This time, however, the X coordinate is labeled in the negative because the frame is moving in the opposite direction along that axis. If you add the results of both observations the total is zero. There is no imaginery time and no missing time. The rods and clocks are affected from the point of view of arbitrarily labeled stationary frames. Your proof would require that Newton's view of the universe was absolutely correct - that there is a preferred state of rest, that linear measurements are fixed irrespective of relative velocities and that time is fixed irrespective of relative velocities (i.e., Galilean Relativity). Your formulas blew up because you took a Galilean/Newtonian view of the world and applied a Lorentz Transformation. Lorentz and Maxwell's studies proved that Galileo's relativity was incorrect, thus Newton's mechanics is incorrect. The effect is, however, quite real. Even though you can arbitrarily label each frame as being at rest you will ultimately be able to determine which one was accelerated relative to the other. Once the person in the accelerated frame returns to the location of the stationary frame and compares "notes" with the stationary observer there they will both agree upon who aged the most. The stationary person will have aged more than the other. That person's clocks and rods remained unaffected while the person in the moving frame's clocks and rods were affected. The proof here is that, as stated above, Newton was wrong. There is no universal time frame. That's why you can apply a Lorentz Transformation. Further proof? Each of the above observers could have, as part of their experiment, agree upon a third frame for comparison. They could, for sake of argument, also compare their individual clocks against a spaceship which appeared to be moving relative to both of them (because their velocities were not the same relative to each other their velocities relative to the spaceship would also be different). Now, when they return to compare notes they can afurther compare their notes relative to the rods and clocks on the spaceship. Not only will they discover that their clocks differ from each other, their clocks each differ from the clock on the spaceship. The difference is not the same, however, because they applied different gamma factors when they were making calculations relative to the spaceship. Proof: there is no universal time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Darby Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Dan, You wrote: Most physicists over the past century have simply dismissed this phenomenon as superluminal flight being "impossible" because there simply can't be an imaginary value of time. Oh, boy...that's hog wash. Time in Minkowski coordinates is always signed as imaginary: X_4 = ict where c = i^2 = -1 Not a single physicist working in general relativity for the past century has dismissed "ict". Yuo have taken at least one university level upper division physics course, haven't you? (The Internet...<sigh>) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

dimiourgos Posted April 28, 2003 Share Posted April 28, 2003 I prefer a new geometry don't know how to say it in english. But it's based on fuzzy sphears and has as a result quantum space. And time travel is posible in theory with the PCT=-1 (if i recall corect) since the parity simetry is broken in many experaments (PC symetry broken in quantum mechanics) the T is needed to go back so the product has a fixed value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

creedo299 Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Re: Newtonain vrs, new stringged space physics: Please note Dan Mohammed' One on superluminal physics and referenced realm frequency mass, plus the new physics: Newtonian physics is okay for minor problems that affront us in every day life. However' not always does Newtonian physics apply properly to the new cosmoses stringed mass physics, which portends that supposedly null space, is really not empty? This means that by this say, supposedly empty space, is full of something and this new type of physics does not lend well always to Newtonian physics? Mass can by current estimations be acceleraited to only eighty percent of C, or light speed, till bizarre effects start to invest themselves, such as photonic emissions from the bolate accelerated mass. This new fact indicates there is a needed change of state, with referenced accelerated masses, within supposed null space. See web search words, NASA superluminal research, the GRC, open faster than light company bid site? >On your quest for cobalt gold and quartz: What your striving for here Dan, is a known psychotronics machine. Psychotonics oriented machines, are under the control auspices of not only the American FBI, CIA, as well as DIA, however under international control as well?! This means even if you did get all the components that you had wanted, then you would one day wake up to go to your cloths closet; open the door and find a Canadian government agent standing inside. He would show you his badge and say, Dan Mohammed, don't fool around with psyhotronics, or we're going to take this device off you and park a CAF armored vehicle, ontop of your place! He would further go on to say, "You got the picture, Dan"? You of course, would nod yes. All kidding aside, psychotronic versions when known, are monitored by a host of governments and if they start to see something they don't like, then your psychotornics device, is confiscated. For Darby' an exceedingly fine MOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

dimiourgos Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Re: Newtonain vrs, new stringged space physics: The empyness of space is a bit null as quastion since with the energy mass convertion we accept the twin birth, a particle and an antiparticle are created in the void from the energy is requared and you have 2 particle in void from energy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

creedo299 Posted April 29, 2003 Share Posted April 29, 2003 Re: Newtonain vrs, new stringged space physics: Dimiourgous had said>The emptiness of space is a bit null, as question?! This is as' since with energy mass conversion, we accept the twin particle birth; a particle and an antiparticle are created in the void from this energy. So what we deduce is a required 2 particle pronunciation,within that supposed null void, from mass energy conversion? ^Edit, please forgive me for modifying your say a little, not all of us would be so able to speak fluent Greacian, if the opportunity had vested? I'm not contesting the geneses of both the classically held particle, antiparticle. We all know this birth, which is gennised via veritable plane frequency. This opposite paring, is due to space and time being multiparted. The new physics, which Dan Mohammed as well as Minimum Twin and many others propose, has to do with many world interpretations, as well as worlds, within other adjusted frequencies. The standard physics that we have now-a-days, just does not cut it, with reference to a multiworld interpretation? There is this one frequency that we call home. However do you realize that there is not only a top harmonic and velocity limit, however a bottom and lower limit out frequency to this reality as well? Normal classical physics does not address the stringed space phenomenon. As a matter of fact, when the new proposals were being delivered just two years ago, on advanced physics topics concerning technology. These discussions were in handling stringed physics proposals and what they said was, "Oh' we now have a computer that will handle this". Wow, that's great. The dear lord knows what will happen to classically trained physicist. What do they do with their lives, work for the car wash, or the fast food restaurant? In deep space physical recorded phenomenon forinstance; they should be using what is known as a deep set Fourier stile parsec counting device.This method should be used for the true age of the universe, with reference to great astronomical distances, which one would observe from the Hubble Telescope. Instead, what they are using fourier parsed counting for, is for blood held constitiunatacies, per liter of cubic volume of blood in labourtories. This technology of telling the true age of the universe ever made it to the astronomical realm; why? Me thinks me smells politics here and I will venture this guess upon the state of affairs concerning proper applications within the newer technologies?! One of the precedents of the NASA /GRC web site, was that the nature of null space had to be understood!? If this is not done, then any Earth made superliuminal space craft, could have never been constructed, which it was not, anyway. The multiverse is similar to in-view as a sturdy wire, with many worlds, coming along on that same wire, within procession, however all set at differing frequencies. What this telling is about, is how we adjust to the concept of differing frequencies, not trying to pose standard best known physics, to newer problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

Persephone Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Hi, I am no mathematical whiz, but I couldn't help wondering when reading your posting, what the idea of this imaginary time component does to C, the constant of the speed of light. Wouldn't the premise that you have posed suggest that the speed of light is only constant from one perspective? Wouldn't the speed of light actually be variable when one considers different perspectives? You gave the example of two persons, one stationary and one moving away from the stationary individual. But what if the moving person was actually a beam of light, a laser, traveling at the speed of light. Wouldn't the 'speed of light' be measured as different velocities by the stationary person and the person who, hypothetically, is traveling on the train going 'the speed of light'. Of course, that is relativity, but please if you don't mind explaining it to me. Why is the speed of light considered a constant? It just seems to me it has to relative? I have never 'got' that in my feeble attempts to understand physics. For some reason, I understand Julian Barbour's supposition that time actually doesn't exist. That we experience reality in a way that makes us use the concept of 'time' to explain our experience. The asymmetry of time that shows it self in the 2nd Law of thermal dynamics, and entropy of heat etc. again involves our perspective, our experience of reality. But at the quantum level, which is known by us, but not directly experienced by us, defines a truer understanding of reality, in that 'spooky' state of being and not being, like Schrodinger's cat etc. In a way, your proof suggests this sort of supposition. I am not so very eloquent about all of this. So I hope you understand what I am tying to say. Maybe you have read Julian Barbour's book/s? I understand to a point what he writes about, but I have trouble putting in into words. In essence, you are stating that just existing makes us time travellers of sorts. Cool. Thanks, The appropriateness of chance is astounding. Persephone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

demonchaser Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 Greetings: I'm brand new on the block, I had figured that Universal time was needed to travel space/time. I will write more next round. I find all of this to be really neat, others thinking on or about the same subject matter. ~~later..Ez Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted September 11, 2004 Share Posted September 11, 2004 So now it's not just a light barrier, it's a time barrier. Yes, indeed. We define linear time with respect to our senses, and our sense of sight is the highest frequency physical sense we possess. Thus, our illusion of time is fixed to the speed of light. This is a very good post. I am sorry I missed it when it was actually posted! It bears further study and expansion on its math.RMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

creedo299 Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Security lock on info:From temporal points A To b, where locus points are pierced in relative movement situs>actions, equal from points A to b, then sub semi setsa, A to B-b, then Ato B augmented then A to AB= Lock walk augmentation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

creedo299 Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Ray' where C is wiggled, then C has utility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

RainmanTime Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Orthogonal/Perpendicular Furthermore, if we could find a way to change the temporal trajectory of an object so that the temporal trajectory was perpendicular to the rest of the object's surroundings, the object would suddenly become frozen in Space (and Mass) and instantly fly away at the speed of light in some undetermined spacial direction, irretrievable by any known means. My emphasis & addition has been added in bold in the above. This is a key understanding of triplex orthogonal Massive SpaceTime. In order for anything to travel in Time, it's temporal trajectory must be orthogonal (perpendicular) to its other "surroundings". Those other "surroundings" are the two alternate dimensions of Mass and Space. Thus, Mass and Space must be mixed and transformed in some manner in order for us to travel in Time. @1c, t = 0 which means that the imaginary time experienced by the passenger is equal to 1, or i. Very interesting parallels to aerodynamic step-change effects when Velocity = Speed of Sound (Mach 1). Shock wave discontunities (non-linearities). In defining and analyzing closed-loop control systems, we use complex numbers to categorize a particular system's closed-loop response. The "real" part of any complex system mode relates to its steady-state, or DC component, called the System Time Response. The "imaginary" part of any complex system mode relates to its oscillatory, or AC component, called the System Frequency Response. Drawing a fractal parallel, this would mean that "total imaginary time" when dealing with speeds at 1C (light speed) would be completely oscillatory (AC) in nature, with no DC component. Therefore, the same complex plane mathematics used in the design and analysis of linear-time control systems can be applied to the problem of time travel. It can all be boiled down to Gain Frequency Response and Phase Frequency Response. But these concepts will need to be described in terms of "Space Frequency" (or Specific Volume) and "Mass Frequency" (or Specific Mass). Also, this real time/imaginary time puzzle is only two thirds of the story. There is another temporal dimension that is designed to create and destroy the universe that it will continuously recycle all of its energy like a perpetual motion machine. Yes. I understand Time to be a 3-dimensional field. If real time and imaginary time define a 2-D plane of Time, then the third dimension would be, as indicated here, the Creation/Destruction (or overall Transformation) dimension that controls the balance of real time and imaginary time. Tranformations in nature always act to recycle Energy (Massive Space Time). I truely think that this poster has a very good handle on the mechanics of Time and its relationships to the Speed of Light. Comments anyone? RMT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

1stBorn Posted September 13, 2004 Share Posted September 13, 2004 Re: Orthogonal/Perpendicular Hey Ray, this is a very interesting post and it fits into your 3x3x3 model. Unlike myself, You seem to have a good understanding of physics, do his calculations seem to make sense? I wonder if there are really 9 dimensions of time :confused:I hope that some day we all learn the hidden truth. 1stBorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.