Tesla's Zero Time Generator

Welcome to our community

Take a moment to sign up and join the discussion! It's simple and free.

Earthmasque

Member
Messages
150
Thanks Numie.

Like my new avatar? Ridiculous, eh? Symbolic too, I guess.

I never though I'd have made it this long. I figured the username would give it away before now. Also, I thought I'd probably be recognized stylistically.

Guess I invest too much in the idea that I might have style, or might be remembered, eh? LOL

In the end, it was old habits. Just like any criminal, I gave myself away.
Bound to happen though. I must have deleted the name "Harte" from the bottoms of 80% of the posts I've made here under this name.

masquedHarte
 

Orpheus Rex

Member
Messages
479
Well, if we approach recreating this machine, unless we have the full plans, we need to tackle it scientifically. So I would suggest mounting the device to a pole (or something to contain it, either from the inside or the outside) loosely and cutting off unnecessary baggage from the design so that the thrust capablities can be better tested. Additionally building the design in an enclosed cylinder and possibly stack several of the devices together in a cylinder. I would also try building an electromagnetic generator either inside the device or around it, possibly both.
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
An attempt was made to educate me into believing centrifugal force was a fictitious force. Yet the more I research this fictitious force, the more it becomes obvious to me that centrifugal force is a real force of nature. Did anyone ever notice that it is the only force capable of negating the force of gravity? Objects in orbit about the earth are weightless (Fact).

Whoever tried to explain that to you obviously didn't explain it very well. The concept of a centrifugal (center-fleeing) force comes from classical physics, and in modern physics has been superseded by centripetal (center-seeking) force. Both, however, are more like classes of forces than forces in and of themselves.

With regards to an object in orbit around the Earth, the centripetal force in question is gravity. Gravity does not need to be negated at all for an object to orbit. (Weightlessness =/= negation of gravity) Indeed, if gravity was negated, no forces would be acting on the object, so it would continue moving in a straight line at a constant velocity in whatever direction it happened to be moving. Instead, gravity accelerates the object towards the Earth. An orbit occurs when the object is moving fast enough perpendicular to the Earth that this acceleration results in a curved path around the Earth. There is no centrifugal, or outwards, force. If there was, it would cancel out gravity, the sum of all forces would be equal to zero and the object would again travel in a straight line away from the Earth.

Another way of visualizing orbits according to General Relativity is that gravity is the result of the Earth's mass warping spacetime, like a bowling ball laying on top of a sheet of fabric would stretch it downwards. If you roll a marble along the edge of this depression at just the right speed, it will roll in a circle around the ball, at least until friction slows it down. (Which, incidentally, explains why light, despite having no mass, is affected by gravity)

n8yptygz-1337325701.jpg


Here's a very useful introductory article on General Relativity.
 
Last edited:

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
4,118
Ayasano

You are aware the General Relativity is a failed theory, aren't you?

Gravity probe B nullified General Relativity the last I checked. Unless of course the final results were fudged. Then you can also talk to the engineers that setup GPS. They can tell you also the calculations predicted by GR were incorrect in synchronizing the satelites.

As for centrifugal or centripetal force. The observations show both forces exist. But the math doesn't.

The real facts are that everything you think you know about mother nature has been converted into theory. There is no theory needed. All the facts are present right in front of your nose. Just learn to separate the facts from the fiction. It's just a big coverup for the gullible willing to accept it.
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
Ayasano

You are aware the General Relativity is a failed theory, aren't you?

Gravity probe B nullified General Relativity the last I checked. Unless of course the final results were fudged. Then you can also talk to the engineers that setup GPS. They can tell you also the calculations predicted by GR were incorrect in synchronizing the satelites.

Gravity Probe B - MISSION STATUS

As you'll see in the linked article, the results were consistent with General Relativity within a margin of error. As for GPS, I think you'll find that if General Relativity was wrong, GPS would cease to work at all, as the system is programmed to automatically correct for time dilation. Without the corrections, the system quickly becomes completely innacurate. I'm not sure what gave you the idea that GR is a "failed" theory. Far from it in fact.

As for centrifugal or centripetal force. The observations show both forces exist. But the math doesn't.

Actually, the observations only show centripetal force. The problem is that people rely on gut feeling telling them centrifugal force must exist, when in fact it doesn't. As for the maths, the reason it's called a "fictitious force" is because it's simply a way to make Newtons laws work in a non-inertial reference frame. From the perspective of an inertial reference frame, it isn't needed.

The real facts are that everything you think you know about mother nature has been converted into theory. There is no theory needed. All the facts are present right in front of your nose. Just learn to separate the facts from the fiction. It's just a big coverup for the gullible willing to accept it.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. A theory of chemistry and physics is needed to build an internal combustion engine. A theory of electromagnetism is needed in order to build a computer. A theory of qunatum mechanics is needed to build a quantum computer. Theories are how we understand the world in a way that is useful to us. When you're constructing extremely complex objects, intuition just doesn't cut it.

As for the coverup stuff, could you elaborate? What exactly is being covered up?
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
4,118
Ayasano

You are aware the General Relativity is a failed theory, aren't you?

Gravity probe B nullified General Relativity the last I checked. Unless of course the final results were fudged. Then you can also talk to the engineers that setup GPS. They can tell you also the calculations predicted by GR were incorrect in synchronizing the satelites.

Gravity Probe B - MISSION STATUS

As you'll see in the linked article, the results were consistent with General Relativity within a margin of error. As for GPS, I think you'll find that if General Relativity was wrong, GPS would cease to work at all, as the system is programmed to automatically correct for time dilation. Without the corrections, the system quickly becomes completely innacurate. I'm not sure what gave you the idea that GR is a "failed" theory. Far from it in fact.

As for centrifugal or centripetal force. The observations show both forces exist. But the math doesn't.

Actually, the observations only show centripetal force. The problem is that people rely on gut feeling telling them centrifugal force must exist, when in fact it doesn't. As for the maths, the reason it's called a "fictitious force" is because it's simply a way to make Newtons laws work in a non-inertial reference frame. From the perspective of an inertial reference frame, it isn't needed.

The real facts are that everything you think you know about mother nature has been converted into theory. There is no theory needed. All the facts are present right in front of your nose. Just learn to separate the facts from the fiction. It's just a big coverup for the gullible willing to accept it.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. A theory of chemistry and physics is needed to build an internal combustion engine. A theory of electromagnetism is needed in order to build a computer. A theory of qunatum mechanics is needed to build a quantum computer. Theories are how we understand the world in a way that is useful to us. When you're constructing extremely complex objects, intuition just doesn't cut it.

As for the coverup stuff, could you elaborate? What exactly is being covered up?

The reason I post here on this forum is because I came looking for individuals with open minds. Your mind appears to be closed to the facts I presented to you. I can't convert a religious believer that blindly follows the pack. If you believe a theory to be fact, then that is your choice. But the fact is no theory is fact. As far as I'm concerned if a theory exists, it exists solely to hide existing facts. Ask yourself this. Did you verify any of those theories you believe in?

I have a couple of examples I will show you that you are being misinformed about the real world we exist within. The first has to do with the equation F=MA. We were taught that equation is supposed to represent an inertial acceleration. Now, lets go to the observations. The facts. Lets pick a car accelerating. Your foot is on the gas pedal. You are accelerating in the forward direction, you feel the presence of weight pushing you back into the seat in the rearward direction. Now, if you could keep accelerating across the surface of the earth, centrifugal force develops making the car lose weight. That's three force vectors. Two opposing vectors, and one orthogonal vector. The force vectors are real. F=MA is a theory. If your life was on the line. Would you pick a fact or a theory to tip the scales in your favor?

Another example is in the real world a force can be set to exactly balance a torque. Mathematically the two should be dimensionally equivalent. At least so says the observable facts. Yet in physics Force equals (kilogram meter/second squared). Torque equals (kilogram meter squared/second squared). It appears the math doesn't represent the universe we live in.

The only advantage I can see from doing this is that it would prevent you from combining linear dynamic equations with rotational dynamic equations. But whose advantage is it? I don't know the answer. But it does become apparent that mankind has nothing to gain by keeping the masses in the dark about the reality we live in.
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
The reason I post here on this forum is because I came looking for individuals with open minds. Your mind appears to be closed to the facts I presented to you. I can't convert a religious believer that blindly follows the pack. If you believe a theory to be fact, then that is your choice. But the fact is no theory is fact. As far as I'm concerned if a theory exists, it exists solely to hide existing facts. Ask yourself this. Did you verify any of those theories you believe in?

My mind is open in the sense that if enough rational evidence is provided, I will change it. (I do try to avoid confirtmation bias where possible, but alas, I'm only human) Examples of such evidence would be repeatable experiments performed under rigorous conditions whose results cannot be reconciled with commonly-accepted theories, or even a well-thought out thought experiment, although the latter would obviously carry less weight.

At no point did I state that a theory is a fact. I simply said that theories are useful. A theory is simply a model of something. (And not necessarily a mathematical one, for example, the "theory of mind") Models simply allow you to predict the outcome of a system given arbitrary starting states. Better models allow more accurate predictions.

As far as verifying every theory, this is simply an impossible task, not to mention a pointless one. Did you verify the theory of electromagnetism before you turned on your computer this morning? Did you verify germ theory before your last visit to a doctor? The beautiful thing about science is that it doesn't care whether or not you "believe" in a theory. Reality trumps belief every time.

I have a couple of examples I will show you that you are being misinformed about the real world we exist within. The first has to do with the equation F=MA. We were taught that equation is supposed to represent an inertial acceleration. Now, lets go to the observations. The facts. Lets pick a car accelerating. Your foot is on the gas pedal. You are accelerating in the forward direction, you feel the presence of weight pushing you back into the seat in the rearward direction. Now, if you could keep accelerating across the surface of the earth, centrifugal force develops making the car lose weight. That's three force vectors. Two opposing vectors, and one orthogonal vector. The force vectors are real. F=MA is a theory. If your life was on the line. Would you pick a fact or a theory to tip the scales in your favor?

Unless the car has wings or is a lifting body, there is no significant upwards force beyond the reaction force applied to the car by the road.

Let's break this down, shall we? Would you agree that in the absence of gravity, the car would move in a straight line away from the Earth at a tangent?

Another example is in the real world a force can be set to exactly balance a torque. Mathematically the two should be dimensionally equivalent. At least so says the observable facts. Yet in physics Force equals (kilogram meter/second squared). Torque equals (kilogram meter squared/second squared). It appears the math doesn't represent the universe we live in.

If I'm understanding this part correctly, you mean something along the lines of this: If you take a metal bar and drill a hole in one end and attach it to a motor, the torque from the motor will cause the bar to rotate. Applying a force to the end of the bar could cancel out the torque.

If the above is what you were describing, then the force applied to the end of the bar is itself generating a torque opposite to the torque generated by the motor, hence the units match up.

The only advantage I can see from doing this is that it would prevent you from combining linear dynamic equations with rotational dynamic equations. But whose advantage is it? I don't know the answer. But it does become apparent that mankind has nothing to gain by keeping the masses in the dark about the reality we live in.

Could you please explain what you mean by "linear dynamic equations" and "rotational dynamic equations"? Are you referring to inertial/non-inertial/rotational reference frames or something else?
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
4,118
Ayasano

Reality trumps belief every time.

TRUE!

Unless the car has wings or is a lifting body, there is no significant upwards force beyond the reaction force applied to the car by the road.

Not entirely true! The observable facts about centrifugal force do show weight being negated with increasing speed across the curvature of the earths surface. So the car gets lighter. Up until it becomes weightless. Without weight the car can't grip the road. But its forward speed will allow it to break free from the earth, and it will move away in a curved path. Now if we attach the car to the road with a gripping rail system, then the car would start to feel weight in the upward direction as it continued to accelerate. So the property of centrifugal weight only exists as long as a tether to the center of curvature exists. This kind of says something about weight. Gravitational and centrifugal weight appears to be independent of acceleration. Remove the radial tether in either one and the presence of weight disappears.

Let's break this down, shall we? Would you agree that in the absence of gravity, the car would move in a straight line away from the Earth at a tangent?

No. Because no where in our universe does that ever occur. Gravity permeates the universe. The only way to negate it is with centrifugal force. And the path where centrifugal force negates gravity is never in a straight line.

If I'm understanding this part correctly, you mean something along the lines of this: If you take a metal bar and drill a hole in one end and attach it to a motor, the torque from the motor will cause the bar to rotate. Applying a force to the end of the bar could cancel out the torque.

If the above is what you were describing, then the force applied to the end of the bar is itself generating a torque opposite to the torque generated by the motor, hence the units match up.

Yes and No. The force does generate an equal and opposite reaction to the torque. So the units of force and torque should match up. But that is not the way it is being taught to you. Torque has an extra dimension of length as part of its dimensionality. That doesn't make sense. That extra dimension of length should be removed from torque in order for the math to accurately describe the physical observation.

Could you please explain what you mean by "linear dynamic equations" and "rotational dynamic equations"? Are you referring to inertial/non-inertial/rotational reference frames or something else?

I was referring to motion along a straight path as opposed to motion along a curved path. In our universe, it appears all motion follows curved paths. But a force individually is capable of producing linear motion. The only problem with that, is observations show a force never exists by itself. It always appears to associate in a group of three forces.
 

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
Ayasano

Reality trumps belief every time.

TRUE!

Unless the car has wings or is a lifting body, there is no significant upwards force beyond the reaction force applied to the car by the road.

Not entirely true! The observable facts about centrifugal force do show weight being negated with increasing speed across the curvature of the earths surface. So the car gets lighter. Up until it becomes weightless. Without weight the car can't grip the road. But its forward speed will allow it to break free from the earth, and it will move away in a curved path. Now if we attach the car to the road with a gripping rail system, then the car would start to feel weight in the upward direction as it continued to accelerate. So the property of centrifugal weight only exists as long as a tether to the center of curvature exists. This kind of says something about weight. Gravitational and centrifugal weight appears to be independent of acceleration. Remove the radial tether in either one and the presence of weight disappears.

Ah, I wasn't disagreeing with the observed results of the thought experiment, I was disagreeing with the conclusions you drew from them. There is no upward force on the car, the observed weightlessness occurs because the motion of the car is carrying it in a straight line away from the Earth at a tangent, but gravity is pulling it down. It's easier to recognize when you're viewing from an inertial reference frame, instead of the car's rotating reference frame, where you appear to be moving in a straight line the entire time, when in fact you're following a curve.

Let's break this down, shall we? Would you agree that in the absence of gravity, the car would move in a straight line away from the Earth at a tangent?

No. Because no where in our universe does that ever occur. Gravity permeates the universe. The only way to negate it is with centrifugal force. And the path where centrifugal force negates gravity is never in a straight line.

That's why it's called a thought experiment. I need you to imagine what would happen if gravity ceased to affect the car and describe the results back to me. It'll help formulate the problem so that we can both understand it.

If I'm understanding this part correctly, you mean something along the lines of this: If you take a metal bar and drill a hole in one end and attach it to a motor, the torque from the motor will cause the bar to rotate. Applying a force to the end of the bar could cancel out the torque.

If the above is what you were describing, then the force applied to the end of the bar is itself generating a torque opposite to the torque generated by the motor, hence the units match up.

Yes and No. The force does generate an equal and opposite reaction to the torque. So the units of force and torque should match up. But that is not the way it is being taught to you. Torque has an extra dimension of length as part of its dimensionality. That doesn't make sense. That extra dimension of length should be removed from torque in order for the math to accurately describe the physical observation.

If you removed the length part of the equation, it would be force at an angle, not torque.
Code:
T = r.F.sin(theta)
vs.
T = F.sin(theta)

where:
T = Torque
r = distance
F = Force
theta = angle between force and object


The reason the length is included is because the same amount of force will produce a larger torque if the distance from the pivot point is larger. That's how see-saws with differing lengths on each side work, or the idea of using a lever to move a heavy object.

You can test this at home, get a ruler and something to balance it on and objects of differing weights, and see how you can balance them when the ruler is offset left or right. Try balancing two objects of the same weight with the ruler offset vs. having the pivot in the middle. If you know the exact masses of the objects, you can even do the calculations yourself and see that they add up.

Could you please explain what you mean by "linear dynamic equations" and "rotational dynamic equations"? Are you referring to inertial/non-inertial/rotational reference frames or something else?

I was referring to motion along a straight path as opposed to motion along a curved path. In our universe, it appears all motion follows curved paths. But a force individually is capable of producing linear motion. The only problem with that, is observations show a force never exists by itself. It always appears to associate in a group of three forces.

You're right about a single force only being able to produce linear motion. As far as all motion following curved paths, are you talking about the warping of spacetime by gravity or the idea that space itself loops around in the 4th dimension?

If we take the example of a probe in deep space that isn't accelerating, but moving at a constant velocity, I can only think of one force affecting it, gravity, albeit weakly at that distance. What are the other two? If it is accelerating via a rocket at the back, then the only forces would be gravity and the force of the propulsion, so what would the third force be there?
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Messages
4,118
Ayasano

Ah, I wasn't disagreeing with the observed results of the thought experiment, I was disagreeing with the conclusions you drew from them. There is no upward force on the car, the observed weightlessness occurs because the motion of the car is carrying it in a straight line away from the Earth at a tangent, but gravity is pulling it down. It's easier to recognize when you're viewing from an inertial reference frame, instead of the car's rotating reference frame, where you appear to be moving in a straight line the entire time, when in fact you're following a curve.

There is an upward force present. But you could prove it to yourself if you were so inclined. An object with weight following a curved path will experience an outward force away from the origin of the curve. Get in your car and take a turn at high speed. That will demonstrate these facts. But you are using the theory we were taught in school to dispel these facts. Remember, reality trumps theory!

That's why it's called a thought experiment. I need you to imagine what would happen if gravity ceased to affect the car and describe the results back to me. It'll help formulate the problem so that we can both understand it.

I can imagine this. But it is only possible for it to happen using the existing observable facts. Gravitational weight can't just cease by itself. An equal amount of negative weight would need to be created. Centrifugal force is the only force that can negate gravitational weight. That much is immutable fact.

The reason the length is included is because the same amount of force will produce a larger torque if the distance from the pivot point is larger. That's how see-saws with differing lengths on each side work, or the idea of using a lever to move a heavy object.

Yes, but force went in a certain radius, and comes out at a certain radius. That is the fulcrum and lever principle. So force can be multiplied this way. But as I recall the two radii are taken as a ratio. The force multiplication ratio or division ratio. In order to get that ratio, radius is divided by radius. The dimensions of length divide out leaving a scalar quantity behind. It looks to me like it is an error in the textbooks. Someone forgot to remove the dimension of length from the final computation.

You're right about a single force only being able to produce linear motion. As far as all motion following curved paths, are you talking about the warping of spacetime by gravity or the idea that space itself loops around in the 4th dimension?

Not necessarily gravity. The electromagnetic forces appear to follow the same rules. Try and get two magnets to repel each other along a linear path. The simple fact is, a force would have to be applied at the exact center of weight to get it to follow a straight path.

If we take the example of a probe in deep space that isn't accelerating, but moving at a constant velocity, I can only think of one force affecting it, gravity, albeit weakly at that distance. What are the other two? If it is accelerating via a rocket at the back, then the only forces would be gravity and the force of the propulsion, so what would the third force be there?

During acceleration, in the presence of gravity, centrifugal force is the third force.

There is something from the observation that becomes readily apparent. With a third force always present, it skews the final result, because it is a three body problem. Now we are told a three body problem is unsolvable. I don't believe that. I think we are just being steered away from understanding reality this way.
 


Top