Time travel a reality.... what do you think?

[Einstein]

Centrifugal force is either apparent only or reactive only, depending on what kind of centrifugal force you mean (sliding across the seat in a car going around a curve is the apparent kind - whirling a bucket of water in a vertical circle is the reactive kind.) The apparent one is fictional, the reactive one is just pure action-reaction.

This was not well understood in Newton's time. Neither was quantum mechanics. Also at that time, they didn't know that mass is a form of energy, which was my point earlier.

No, I've not see your proof. I seriously doubt its validity.

You participated in the thread where I prove centrifugal force is real and the object once released does indeed accelerate away from the center of rotation. Although I believe I scared away Ayasano after he reviewed it. It was in the Tesla's Zero Time Generator thread. It's too simple a proof. Newton probably had this in his Principea, and it was removed. I do recall I learned the math to understand the concept in the 10th grade.

No where in the physical observations is Mass apparent. It's all weight. It's like someone threw a monkey wrench into the knowledgebase. And no one questions why it's there. It doesn't fit. It's pure fiction. Mass is a measurement of a defined quantity of weight in a motionless environment.

An object in gravitational freefall within a vacuum is weightless. How do you measure the mass of a weightless object?

 

[IroncladMarshmallow]

Hi Einstein. You remember Newton's laws of motion? An object at rest or in motion tends to maintain its state unless acted on by an external force, and for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When something spins in a circle, a force must act on it toward the center of curvature, and the outward force is the equal & opposite reaction. I'd say it's as real as the inward force, but I'm not sure there's anything mysterious going on here.

 

[Einstein]

Hi Einstein. You remember Newton's laws of motion? An object at rest or in motion tends to maintain its state unless acted on by an external force, and for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When something spins in a circle, a force must act on it toward the center of curvature, and the outward force is the equal & opposite reaction. I'd say it's as real as the inward force, but I'm not sure there's anything mysterious going on here.

Except for the fact the physics instructors try to fictionalize the outward centrifugal force as being fictional. It's not fictional. Centrifugal force fits the missing piece of the puzzle. In actuality centrifugal force is the anti-gravity force. The only force in nature that can nullify weight. I'm not arguing with the observations. Just the silly science we are taught in school.

But I see it as a method of control. If everyone is taught misinformation. Then no one can do any harm with misinformation. But no one can do any good with misinformation either.

 

[IroncladMarshmallow]

There are what are referred to as fictitious forces, but that doesn't mean they aren't really there. A college level dynamics course covers them in detail. Some of them arise from differentiation of equations in polar coordinates. Wikipedia has some information on it. I don't think it's a cover-up, I just think that most people don't bother to learn it.

Mechanics of planar particle motion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
section "Fictitious forces in polar coordinates"

 

[Earthmasque]

Centrifugal force is either apparent only or reactive only, depending on what kind of centrifugal force you mean (sliding across the seat in a car going around a curve is the apparent kind - whirling a bucket of water in a vertical circle is the reactive kind.) The apparent one is fictional, the reactive one is just pure action-reaction.

This was not well understood in Newton's time. Neither was quantum mechanics. Also at that time, they didn't know that mass is a form of energy, which was my point earlier.

No, I've not see your proof. I seriously doubt its validity.

You participated in the thread where I prove centrifugal force is real and the object once released does indeed accelerate away from the center of rotation.

The sketches you linked in that thread contain no proof of anything.

What you did was calculate the hypotenuse of a right triangle as the length of one side varied.

That's like me making a cake by carefully measuring cups of flour and sugar then claiming I proved the existence of ghosts.

You seem confused, as you mention two different "centrifugal" forces in your posts in that thread as if they were the same thing. The one in the car is a fictional force. The one on the bucket is a real force. The real force (on the bucket) is an action-reaction force that results from you pulling the bucket toward the center of rotation.

See, the bucket wouldn't go around in a circle if you weren't forcing it to by pulling on it. Motion, unless interfered with, is always straight line. The "centrifugal" force you feel when whirling a bucket is the bucket trying to travel in a straight line.

In the car, when you go around the turn your body (and the rest of the car) wants to continue traveling in a straight line (and would do so if you didn't interfere by turning the wheel.)
Because of this straight-line tendency (aka inertia,) you seem to feel a force trying to keep you in a straight line. In fact, it is literally the car turning out from under you.

It's simple as that, there is no actual force in the car, and the force you feel from the bucket is the reaction force to your action of continuously altering the trajectory of the bucket (in order to make its path circular.)

Sorry, but no, you didn't "prove" anything there. Or, maybe I missed it.

I haven't been back to that thread since I was outed as Harte in it. Otherwise I would have replied at the time.

 

[Einstein]

Centrifugal force is either apparent only or reactive only, depending on what kind of centrifugal force you mean (sliding across the seat in a car going around a curve is the apparent kind - whirling a bucket of water in a vertical circle is the reactive kind.) The apparent one is fictional, the reactive one is just pure action-reaction.

This was not well understood in Newton's time. Neither was quantum mechanics. Also at that time, they didn't know that mass is a form of energy, which was my point earlier.

No, I've not see your proof. I seriously doubt its validity.

You participated in the thread where I prove centrifugal force is real and the object once released does indeed accelerate away from the center of rotation.

The sketches you linked in that thread contain no proof of anything.

What you did was calculate the hypotenuse of a right triangle as the length of one side varied.

That's like me making a cake by carefully measuring cups of flour and sugar then claiming I proved the existence of ghosts.

You seem confused, as you mention two different "centrifugal" forces in your posts in that thread as if they were the same thing. The one in the car is a fictional force. The one on the bucket is a real force. The real force (on the bucket) is an action-reaction force that results from you pulling the bucket toward the center of rotation.

See, the bucket wouldn't go around in a circle if you weren't forcing it to by pulling on it. Motion, unless interfered with, is always straight line. The "centrifugal" force you feel when whirling a bucket is the bucket trying to travel in a straight line.

In the car, when you go around the turn your body (and the rest of the car) wants to continue traveling in a straight line (and would do so if you didn't interfere by turning the wheel.)
Because of this straight-line tendency (aka inertia,) you seem to feel a force trying to keep you in a straight line. In fact, it is literally the car turning out from under you.

It's simple as that, there is no actual force in the car, and the force you feel from the bucket is the reaction force to your action of continuously altering the trajectory of the bucket (in order to make its path circular.)

Sorry, but no, you didn't "prove" anything there. Or, maybe I missed it.

I haven't been back to that thread since I was outed as Harte in it. Otherwise I would have replied at the time.

Yes, you missed the whole point of the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse calculations were the distance calculations away from the original center of rotation. Since the centrifugal force is in that direction. Those hypotenuse calculations plotted against time indicate an acceleration curve.

So lets call it a weight attached to a string. You spin the weight around yourself. The centrifugal force is in the direction away from you. Not in the direction of rotation. If you cut the string, The centrifugal force goes to zero. But the path the weight moves away from you is an acceleration. The hypotenuse calculations show this to be so. This is not an inertial acceleration. It's identical to a gravitational acceleration. But the direction is reversed. Conclusion: Centrifugal force is Anti-gravity.

Do you see the two paths of motion as represented by the hypotenuse and one side of the triangle?

Let's stop here and you tell me if you have followed along.

There's more if you followed along.....

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I'll definitely be looking that up, I wonder how he done it...

With knowledge all most no one has.

Does he not share how he done it?

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

I'm not familiar with either of their stories. Although It seems I may have actually listened to Jim Sparks being interviewed by Art Bell quite a while ago.

To me most of this stuff is just entertainment. As for time travel? There was a time when I would have just believed you were crazy to believe something like that. That is untill I tried to commit suicide. Someone interrupted my attempt and gave me some reasons to keep going. Don't know who did it. But logic and deduction indicates only I could have been the person that saved me. But how? All I come up with is that I invent a time machine in the future and go back and save me.

So in my journey to invent a time machine I discover my science and physics education is not based in fact. Much of it appears to be just religous belief. It goes back all the way to Newton. I got a hold of a translated version of his Principea. It appears to be heavily edited and censored. The atomic bomb could never have been invented if scientists back then were using the modern edited version of the Principea. So they were using knowledge that no longer exists.

The more I dig, the more stuff I find that just does not add up.

If there is a secret government, It's not run by mankind.

Thank you for sharing something so personal, that's not an easy thing to do. I admire your honesty and bravery... and I'm glad you are here to tell the tale

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the spiritual elements of time travel. Do you believe that time travel is purely physical and scientific, or do you believe that it has a spiritual aspect? I have my own thoughts (ie: the physical, mental and spiritual all work together. You can't have one without the other and all combined - with the right technologies - could make time travel a reality). I have my own insights on time travelling too and am currently putting a document together that I will send to a fellow time travel enthusiast in the very near future. I do lots of prayer and meditation and it is through these small, spiritual journeys that I have acquired some knowledge and wisdom. Sometimes I get messages right away, mostly it is through dreams afterwards that I tend to get images (or 'visions', for want of a better word). This might sound crazy to most, but there's so much more to this world than we can possibly imagine and each of us are more knowledgeable than we think. We just need to keep digging.

Do you think the answers could be found if we combined both science and spirituality, when searching for time travel capabilities? Also, have you tried meditating when you come across a scientific problem?

Thanks!

 

[Einstein]

I'm not familiar with either of their stories. Although It seems I may have actually listened to Jim Sparks being interviewed by Art Bell quite a while ago.

To me most of this stuff is just entertainment. As for time travel? There was a time when I would have just believed you were crazy to believe something like that. That is untill I tried to commit suicide. Someone interrupted my attempt and gave me some reasons to keep going. Don't know who did it. But logic and deduction indicates only I could have been the person that saved me. But how? All I come up with is that I invent a time machine in the future and go back and save me.

So in my journey to invent a time machine I discover my science and physics education is not based in fact. Much of it appears to be just religous belief. It goes back all the way to Newton. I got a hold of a translated version of his Principea. It appears to be heavily edited and censored. The atomic bomb could never have been invented if scientists back then were using the modern edited version of the Principea. So they were using knowledge that no longer exists.

The more I dig, the more stuff I find that just does not add up.

If there is a secret government, It's not run by mankind.

Thank you for sharing something so personal, that's not an easy thing to do. I admire your honesty and bravery... and I'm glad you are here to tell the tale

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the spiritual elements of time travel. Do you believe that time travel is purely physical and scientific, or do you believe that it has a spiritual aspect? I have my own thoughts (ie: the physical, mental and spiritual all work together. You can't have one without the other and all combined - with the right technologies - could make time travel a reality). I have my own insights on time travelling too and am currently putting a document together that I will send to a fellow time travel enthusiast in the very near future. I do lots of prayer and meditation and it is through these small, spiritual journeys that I have acquired some knowledge and wisdom. Sometimes I get messages right away, mostly it is through dreams afterwards that I tend to get images (or 'visions', for want of a better word). This might sound crazy to most, but there's so much more to this world than we can possibly imagine and each of us are more knowledgeable than we think. We just need to keep digging.

Do you think the answers could be found if we combined both science and spirituality, when searching for time travel capabilities? Also, have you tried meditating when you come across a scientific problem?

Thanks!

Well, I can tell you that all my life I have been able to ask a question just before going to sleep, and I wake up with the answer. Or a method to help find an answer.

As for what time travel is? I have learned to dispel all beliefs. What I'm left with is just facts. Through trial and error I have found out that you can actually build stuff with facts. 100% failure rate on beliefs though. You have to bite the bullet on beliefs and say goodbye. The world becomes a much smaller place when you remove beliefs. But then you discover a whole new world that I call reality.

 

[Earthmasque]

Yes, you missed the whole point of the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse calculations were the distance calculations away from the original center of rotation. Since the centrifugal force is in that direction. Those hypotenuse calculations plotted against time indicate an acceleration curve.

You plotted a fantasy trajectory against time. Garbage in, garbage out:

Note the path of the weight after the string is cut. What you show in your sketch is perpendicular to the actual path, which would be along what you label above as the Y-axis above.

You forgot that the hypotenuse (I assume it is the rope) is undergoing tension. In other words, you are pulling on it.

So lets call it a weight attached to a string. You spin the weight around yourself. The centrifugal force is in the direction away from you. Not in the direction of rotation. If you cut the string, The centrifugal force goes to zero. But the path the weight moves away from you is an acceleration.

No, there's no acceleration after the string is cut. The only acceleration is before the string is cut and it is provided by you.

Acceleration means a change in velocity. A change in direction is a change in velocity. You are changing the direction of the weight by accelerating it toward the center of rotation. The weight's inertia causes an opposite but equal force - third time now I've said that. It is the reaction force to the action force you apply at your end of the string.

If you didn't pull, the weight would travel in a straight line and not on a circular path.