Real problems with time travel

[Einstein]

I don't see where Newton made an arithmetic mistake. Show your work.

The basic equation F=MA which represents Force is equivalent to the product of mass times acceleration. Force, mass, and acceleration are all different things. I don't see any mathematical proof that would legally allow the relationship to exist. In fact I don't even see a formal definition of what mass is and what led Newton to believe as he did.

When I took Algebra in high school there were strict rules that had to be followed when dealing with equations. The basic rules to follow were that something could always be set to equal itself. And what ever is done to one side of an equation must be done to the other side of an equation. As you could see in the above video by violating those rules what starts out as an equation eventually turns into an inequality.

 

[Kairos]

That's not a math error. F=ma is a valid equation. The equation is born out by experiment. Did you not take physics in college? You can test this for yourself on an incline ramp with a ball bearing and a good clock.

 

[Kairos]

Also, you confuse the model with the math. I could say F = m*a^2 and the math would be valid. The model would be wrong.

 

[Einstein]

That's not a math error. F=ma is a valid equation. The equation is born out by experiment. Did you not take physics in college? You can test this for yourself on an incline ramp with a ball bearing and a good clock.

I did take physics in school. We did do the experiments in lab. And questions were raised. What is mass? Why is no distinction made between gravitational mass and inertial mass? No proof was ever given that mass even exists. And then fantastic properties were given to mass. Like it resists motion. Mass can never be negative.

The resistance felt in an inertial acceleration can be measured as force. Which conflicts with mass being used instead.

It is like mathematical laws were thrown out the window in order to make this believable. And upon closer scrutiny it all looks like a big farce to me.

 

[Kairos]

That's metaphysics, dude. Philosophy. The model makes predictions about things that happen in the physical world. It works fine.

 

[Einstein]

That's metaphysics, dude. Philosophy. The model makes predictions about things that happen in the physical world. It works fine.

I have been after the reasons for the discrepancies for years. The model we are given is the censored version. Which does hint that there might be a real version. So perhaps correcting the model to actually model what is real might lead to a better understanding of gravity and time.

 

[Kairos]

What physical phenomena do you wish to model that we can measure, though?

I am not saying you are right or wrong. But scientifically, we just go with the model that works with our given data. Classical physics works fine most of the time. Relativity is needed for extremes. This stuff is not my field, but I think the areas where we have trouble are extending gravitation down to the quantum level, and also some ideas of simplifying the model by changing the gravitation equation to get rid of the need for dark matter. That's all I got here.

I am not sure what you mean by your earlier post.

As far as the *model* being wrong somehow.. I am absolutely sure we will have to change it someday, just as we had to alter Newton's equation with Einstein's equation. We need to find evidence the existing model is broken and build a new model off of the discrepancy. Then someday we will change that equation. And then change the next one, and so on. That's how this work. Changing equations is changing the model, though.

 

[Einstein]

I'm not a Relativity believer either. The theory is flawed right from the start with Einstein's own preamble to the theory. He asks us to accept the theory as conjecture. But part of that conjecture is the Principle of Equivalence. He equated gravitational weight to inertial weight. The conditions that produce either weight are not the same. Gravitational weight is always stationary. Yet inertial weight requires relative motion to exist. The old apple equals an orange problem. As you can see from my above posts it is mathematically impossible to describe two things different as being equivalent. So right from the start Relativity is falsified.

In my earlier post I tried to show how the concept of mass appears to be a coverup to hide something that is right in plain sight. All we have to do is look. Of course my Physics class never introduced us to analytical thinking. So everyone is on their own if something doesn't make sense. So what are they trying to hide? My opinion is that they discovered how to manipulate time. A nuclear weapon could be an offshoot technology from that discovery. The sky is the limit for things that could be created with the manipulation of time.

 

[TimeFlipper]

At the very least, you have now got agreement that you were not being metaphysical in your earlier assertions ..
I think that perhaps now we could get back to the purpose of this thread, which is to discuss the real problems that could affect our beloved topic of, time-travel...could this be the moment for me to discuss "Time-Locks" again? ..

 

[Mayhem]

The real problem here is unending ones that want to go back and fix something they messed up on.

Still unlock what time is before it can be travelled.