🛡️ Debate Time travelers posting online: Are they all fake?

[Judastitor]

Gravity is the distortion of space/time by mass.

 

[Einstein]

Gravity is the distortion of space/time by mass.

Got any facts to support that statement?

Why not try and figure out the mass of a weightless object and tell me if you see anything wrong.

 

[PaulaJedi]

Are you claiming that you see no positive proof of the story of John Titor?

Definitely! The story was shown to have some false elements in it years ago. Apparently due to the story teller not having enough education about physics. Taking a picture of a laser beam being bent by gravity is not possible. The person taking the picture would have been crushed by gravity long before the beam ever became visibly bent.

But you still refuse to read Conviction of a Time Traveler.

 

[Ayasano]

Why not try and figure out the mass of a weightless object and tell me if you see anything wrong.

One way would be to apply a known force to the object and measure the resulting acceleration. (F=ma after all. That's how scales work, they measure the downward force and divide by the acceleration due to gravity)

 

[Einstein]

Why not try and figure out the mass of a weightless object and tell me if you see anything wrong.

One way would be to apply a known force to the object and measure the resulting acceleration. (F=ma after all. That's how scales work, they measure the downward force and divide by the acceleration due to gravity)

But an object in gravitational free-fall in a vacuum is weightless. Just acceleration is present.

And in your example you are dividing by an acceleration that is not present.

Those are real facts in our real world. It's almost as if F=MA is not applicable for gravity.

And I've already pointed out previously the formula does not match the physical observations for an inertial acceleration.

 

[Ayasano]

But an object in gravitational free-fall in a vacuum is weightless. Just acceleration is present.

And in your example you are dividing by an acceleration that is not present.

Those are real facts in our real world. It's almost as if F=MA is not applicable for gravity.

And I've already pointed out previously the formula does not match the physical observations for an inertial acceleration.

I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong. For starters, "weightless" is a misnomer that gets bandied around a lot. In a free fall the object still has weight, otherwise it wouldn't accelerate during the fall. The same is true of an orbiting object, gravity is just balanced out by the object's inertia.

As far as "dividing by an acceleration that is not present", perhaps you misunderstood my example. When you apply a force to an object, that object accelerates. That's physics 101. Without it, your car wouldn't go anywhere. If you measure the acceleration with a known mass, you can work backwards to get the force. With a known force, you can work out the mass. This is primary school physics.

The observations do match up with the formulae, I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.

 

[Judastitor]

Gravity is the distortion of space/time by mass.

Got any facts to support that statement?

Why not try and figure out the mass of a weightless object and tell me if you see anything wrong.

Gravitational lensing........... It allows you to observe the light of stars behind black holes and nearby stars due to the light being bent around the gravitational event horizon of the subject, just like in John Titor's photo of the laser light being bent around the event horizon of the C204...........

 

[AAA]

I have no doubt in my mind that time travel is real. There is definitely enough evidence laying around to suggest so.

Examples are everywhere in plain sight, if you can see the forest through the trees in your way.

 

[Khaos]

Interesting point, aside from the photo, do you have other allegations to discredit?

Yes. The micro Black Holes are complete fiction. Supposed to have been created at CERN in Titor's timeline. Yet they were never created here in our timeline..

You sure? Are you a CERN scientist or do you know one? I mean they could have very well created a micro black hole. They found the higgs boson. The god particle. Even the physicist and now confirmed atheist, Stephen Hawking commented on the boson and confirmed its existence. If they are able to find and recreate that, who knows what else they have created. There could be a micro black hole in the core of the earth right now, eating away everything it touches. Would explain why we have had earthquakes in unusual places and more volcano eruptions than normal in the last hundred years.

And you think they would tell everyone they created something like that? Supposedly there are aliens within the government, pulling the strings. And the government has since denied their existence. You think they're going to come out and confirm the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy? Think of the mass panic that would cause, same with a micro black hole, same with an asteroid heading for earth that would wipe us all out.

Same with the Roswell crash. Something more than a weather balloon happened and have they come clean about that?

My point is, don't claim you know it all and claim things that you know everything about do or do not exist, when you have very little evidence they do or don't. I might believe in Ghosts, but I'm also skeptical of them. I might believe in a higher power, but then I'm just as skeptical about that too.

 

[Einstein]

But an object in gravitational free-fall in a vacuum is weightless. Just acceleration is present.

And in your example you are dividing by an acceleration that is not present.

Those are real facts in our real world. It's almost as if F=MA is not applicable for gravity.

And I've already pointed out previously the formula does not match the physical observations for an inertial acceleration.

I'm sorry but that's just plain wrong. For starters, "weightless" is a misnomer that gets bandied around a lot. In a free fall the object still has weight, otherwise it wouldn't accelerate during the fall. The same is true of an orbiting object, gravity is just balanced out by the object's inertia.

As far as "dividing by an acceleration that is not present", perhaps you misunderstood my example. When you apply a force to an object, that object accelerates. That's physics 101. Without it, your car wouldn't go anywhere. If you measure the acceleration with a known mass, you can work backwards to get the force. With a known force, you can work out the mass. This is primary school physics.

The observations do match up with the formulae, I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.

I can't help you with your misguided concept of weightless objects. At least not until we are on the same page. So let's start out with a definition of weightless.

weightless (ˈweɪtləs) adj
1. (General Physics) (of a body) having no actual weight; a state in which an object has no actual weight (because it is in space and unaffected by gravitational attraction) or no apparent weight (because the gravitational attraction equals the centripetal force and the object is in free fall)

Here's the link I used: weightless - definition of weightless by The Free Dictionary

For the second part of your reply I was referring to gravitational weight or force. An object on the surface of the earth has no measurable acceleration towards the center of the earth. Yet it has weight. Didn't you notice that when they slipped that one by you in physics class? Try using F=MA. It comes out as a real force equating to zero. This is an inconsistency.

And based on your reply, you aren't ready for a real discussion on inertial weight. Even though I've tried in the past.

Let me just say, you don't get to decide what the facts are. Mother nature already decided those for you. All you have to do is look and see for yourself.