TimeContinuum

What is your proposed test to verify? Do you have a craft that will allow us to journey to the center of the Earth?

The problem with this generator is that eventually the buttered bread and cat will reach a point of sideways equilibrium without the force of gravity to simulate a fall. Perhaps the addition of automatic pulley system connected to the cat and buttered bread could allow for simulated drops to keep the RPM at an acceptable rate? Let me know of your results.

Got most parts I'll need. Also I'm abandoning the Dipole Array configuration for the moment because I feel the results will be fairly predictable. Changing my approach to wiring the coil as sort of "wave shaping". I've decided to start my website back up to track my progress on there. Anybody interested in following it can check it out at: http://www.eirhead.com I got it set to auto-notify facebook for me, and I like keeping my friends up to date on my experiments, haha.

Matter-electro-magnetic-gravitational-light force = 1 thing the general 3 dimensional direction of buddy. But the thing is, buddy travels everywhere in the universe once per moment. So his spin is influenced most heavily by other buddies who are doing a 3d spin moderately similar to him. If he's spinning perty slow, he becomes matter and his influence is stronger on people closer by (gravity). If he get's spinning up a little too fast, he becomes a wave! It can be light, electric, magnetic, or even fusion! Anyways, now buddy is flying around again, when what do we see? A star, he attracts us for awhile, then we get going so fast, and we get so close, that our forces are repelling each other so much that I just bounce right off (diamagnetism), so now I'm a cool little gamma ray - OOO AAA! Ran into a buddy, ran into another buddy, losing energy! Ionizing....... SMACK BAM we knock another buddy off of his atom and screw up his day! All those buddies looking at me sure are slowing me down (magnetic shield), annnnnnnddddd I'm radiant heat on pluto, how lonely. I'm going back to the sun, F-U guys! So buddy goes for another bounce aannnnnnDDDD this time he's a slower gamma ray, cuz his bounce wasn't an acceleration all the way from alpha centauri this time! NNNNNOOOWWWWWWWWWWWVVVVVVRRROOOOMMMMMMMMMMM Hey that's a cool green and blue planet you got there, I'm kinda like going at xray speed tho, I need a buddy to catch me! Annnnnnd LET'S MARRY AND BECOME DEUTERIUM!? Sure bra. Oh shit son - u're a dude. Well, let's find some chicks, I needa see an OO face. OOOOO OOO OO. K so anyways, buddies float out of the ocean, and marry a couple Oxygens. THE END or is it? Should also mention, time is explained by how Monsieur Star attracts Mr. Buddy

I'd wager the inner core is more like 2 cores. The outer-inner being a plasma-core. Then the inner-inner being a fusion core. Then once we have enough energy of our own, we can start a diamagnetic effect with the sun and slowly float away from it =) This is all just a guess by me.

2 layers wrapped around iron core, 104 turns Operating at 2.4V, 18A, max range of 2 1/4" (43.2 Watts, heats significantly, not too hot to handle, but wouldn't leave unattended) 1 layers wrapped around 6 iron core, aligned parallel, 52 turns per core, 312 turn total Operating at 2.4V, 8.5A, max range of 4" (20.4 Watts, better power handling because of difference in turns, will need to introduce more controls into next experiment) Conclusion Although the controls could be improved, double my magnetic range with less than half power cannot be ignored. Am going to skip forward to more advanced testing next. NEXT UP Very high voltage pulse arrays. Parts to get: - 10 AWG single stranded wire - Strip old breaker box of copper bars - 0/4 AWG wire - 10KV 2300pF vacuum capacitor - 2X parabolic satellite dishes - Power Supply or transformer to charge 10KV capacitor 2 different arrays to test - Radials - Dipole Array TO DO - Engineer both array configurations to same power handling, radial array will have much longer elements. Additional Notes - Don't expect anything Earth shattering on this small of a scale, but results of an extremely high-powered EMP: - My radial array will be tuned to a specific UHF frequency, so after pulse tests, I will add a cavity, and attempt more of a single-point, short-range, UHF laser, with the addition of an oscillating power transmitter (do have readily available )

Hey guys, I'm going to be building a type of coil which I believe is capable of concentrating magnetic force waves with more laser beam like precision just figured I'd start a thread on the idea. I'll post some pictures of my experimentation and maybe throw up some diagrams as I draw them. If anybody has any questions, suggestions or experience they'd like to share with me, I'll be constructing my first proof of concept in the next 2 days. My goal with the first device is to accomplish beam like characteristics in magnetic force. Here's a 0.8 Watt Electromagnet for you to look at in the mean time, it will be my point of reference when comparing efficiencies of field: Some reading: http://en.wikipedia....lectromagnetism http://en.wikipedia....ki/Phase_(waves) http://en.wikipedia....i/Dipole_magnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/nasa-levitates-mouse

Can you program me a 3d model simulation?

I programmed a brute-force password hacker in grade 7. My school threatened to expel me if I didn't cut it out. You can PM me if you want I guess - what's the rules on these forums? You can send several thousand tcp/ip requests simultaneously if you want.

Can you program a 3d model for me?

OK! Now we're talking. The purpose of the animation wasn't to show any "relativity breaking". In fact the animation is as swansont stated, pulse reshaping. But remember, I'm not trying to argue the characteristics of light. The purpose of the animation was to help you visualize what it would look like if matter was breaking light speed relative to you, entering a negative time frame, then decelerating back into an observable positive timeframe. Just because we're always chasing light, doesn't mean matter can't break that speed relative to each other. I believe it's much more like the Alcubierre Metric (which is a plausible solve for relativity, it just falls a little short and I'm trying to help physicists visualize how it can be fixed) than you know. If you visualize stars as your kind of Energetic, space and time warping mediums, you will understand exactly why NASA space probe clocks decelerate as they approach the sun, accelerate as they exit the solar system, and why galaxy rotations happen the way they do! Also it should give a better understanding of lensing without resorting to dark-matter theory. It really does fall within relativity theory, you just need to allow your mind to break free of the concept that matter traveling greater than light speed relative to each other is impossible. All the while keeping relativity intact!! There is an extremely elegant way of expressing this, I'd like to work with a physicist to formulate it. Consider light more like a relative distance in time, and perception of time more like a constant. I agree that timeframes will vary! But if you deal in straight lines, the timescapes will balance after they meet in space. In order to fully understand this, a new model of the atom which can be interchanged with lightwaves and electromagnetic force needs to be birthed as well. So I don't expect for the average classically studied physicist to give me an easy time. I'm just trying to find that one open-minded guy who isn't too far lost in modern-theory. But I digress...

If you even attempted to try and understand my theory, you'd understand that the entangled energy from the stars links them in a kind of gravitational/time-warp sense fixing the MOND theory and eliminating the Dark Matter theory. You assume I don't read all about these theories, when in fact I have, but have chosen to dismiss the unobservable and have instead re-understood relativity in a non-classical sense. And I have discovered, that certain misinterpretations in relativity are factors towards our current gross misunderstanding. You say it's not a theory, but go on to call it a placeholder. Really?! How is that any different??? I got a placeholder: GOD. Prove me wrong. You can't. So why don't you quit being so ignorant and accept that dark-matter is a theory. You can't just design a new element "magic" to explain what you don't understand. You can say God is responsible for our observational anomalies and you end up with the same result - Bad science.

Can you keep this topic in relativity please? I don't feel as if I'm deviating from proper relativity theory. Maybe my model of the universe varies from some modern post-Einstein models? But I feel as if I remain within the laws of relativity in everything I've said thus far. Once again, I'm person B 1s = 1s. But I measure person A's 1s to = 0.999956636667624s (this number is based upon velocity difference, not energy difference, real world would be different). But person A's 1s still equals 1s to him. It's just our perception of time is relative to ▲E. So basically, Lorrentz transformation is explained in the same simplified formula. Now let's make a theoretical: You're travelling away from me at 600,000,000 m/s I view your time as -2t, and you view my time as -2t. You turn around and come back to me, at 600,000,000 m/s Now it's 2t. We meet each other on a linear path back where we started. t experienced for person A = t experience for person B. Do a circle around the world, it becomes a different story, because we're not dealing with straight lines anymore. Get what I'm trying to say? because t is constant, time travel is not possible. Slight bending of time based on ▲E? You bet your ass! But we'll all experience 1s as 1s in this equation because t is constant! Simple. It's all relativity. Now I hate theoreticals... so here's a real world test of a lightwave going so fast it goes back in time, illustrating exactly what i just said: http://rochester.edu...hotos/light.swf

Well, time is a variant of ▲E so I lied. The equation already explains this.

How am I allowing the speed of light to change? It's a constant silly.

Yes I understand it. Do you understand what I'm saying?

E= m•lightsecond²/time It's the same formula. But we separate speed of light into time and distance. Since both things can pretty much be warped. PERSON A is moving away from PERSON B at 13,000 m/s I'm person B, a lightsecond for person A in his direction is 299,805,458m, in the opposite direction it's 299,779,458m. This proposal postulates that time is actually constant but perspectives can be bent based on energy difference. It's a minor change, but it solves a lot, I think... Am I allowed to do this?

I'm telling you guys, this is the solve to time / gravity / light / electromagnetism / cosmology / astrology etc. It explains Lorrentz transformations, it explains all of the NASA clock anomalies. ALL OF THEM. It's so simple, I don't understand why I can't find someone intelligent to help give me more constructive input. Rather I'm met with sceptics who take century old theory for the bible, even though general relativity has been broken ages ago, we continually try to adapt it to continue to make it work. We need a fix, and this is it. I'm done on these boards, I work with some really smart guys, I think I can explain it to them in terms that they'll be able to understand now. Thanks for making me aware of my couple minor incidental errors in the first post. I stopped reading about dark-matter when the first sentence was written "Dark-matter was postulated..." & "Dark matter is widely believed to be composed primarily of a new, not yet characterized, type of sub-atomic particle." Meaning it's a theory with no more weight than mine. Give me a break, this is FICTION FICTION FICTION. Your gullibility for everything coming from the blinks Stephen Hawking is astounding. Einstein would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what has become of physics. In fact, I find it HILARIOUS that you discard this theory and throw it into the "speculation forums" when the entire grounding from it is built off of E=mc² solved to c = sqrt( E / m ), and just kind of reinventing how you maybe think of time and space when dealing on an astronomical scale. Rather than try to be constructive you cling to your fiction and claim it to be science. Real science is tested and proven, the space probes prove my theory. You continue to postulate about unsubstantiated science-fiction, I'm going to do real science Mmmmkay? If you wanna be ahead of the curve, start looking into how you can apply this theory to formulae. Protips, bye! I'm out.

Einstein himself stated his biggest blunder was the "cosmological constant". Nowadays science-fiction seems to be ruling physics theory, anti-matter, negative energy, the unobservable making up 70% of our universe... what kind of bullshit is this? If I understand the theory of dark matter properly, Voyager 1 should have been annihilated by now! But no, it continues to tick on in the void of space. All of these theories are being conceived to fit inside the obsolete theory that an infinite amount of energy would be required to move a mass to light speed relative to earth, as if some "cosmological constant" actually exists! I got news for you! The "cosmological constant" is our sun. Our star which provides earth with 99% of it's energy. Escape it, and no more cosmological constant, more like a cosmic variable. The difference in energy between the stars is how you can determine the amount of energy required to obtain a newton of force! As you enter deep space with 2-3 degrees Kelvin of energy available to be absorbed, light-ion engines like the Variable Specific Impulse Magneto Plasm engine which may only provide 5N of force at 200kW, all of a sudden can provide say, 500N of force and beyond! That's how deep space works.

It's a difficult to explain because it's kind of like time / distance / speed of light all warp in 1 homogenous equation relative to the stars. Making time seem constant, making speed of light seem constant, and making distance seem constant. Where a little bending is allowed, but nothing ever breaks. I really feel like I need to sit down, write some equations and a thesis to properly explain this. You're not wrong. Just... I don't think my point is clear. I think of deep space as kind of like this hallway with a bunch of doors. Very quick and easy to walk around, knock on all the doors... and if you want to go for a visit, each of the doors contains a big lavish room to get lost in for days, weeks, years, or a millennia -------------------------------------- Think about this. Say you're in earth's orbit, you're experiencing zero gravity, no big deal. There's still that MASSIVE body "The Sun" which is inflicting a lot of energy and force upon you, I like to consider this my time variable, but this might convolute my argument... regardless, you are stuck to the sun like a cheerio swimming around in a bowl of milk. The cheerio absorbs the milk, the cheerio is limited by milk's friction and eventually, if you leave your bowl of cheerios for a long enough time, it becomes 1 giant blob of disgusting cheerio-milk where you can't distinguish what was once a cheerio and what was once milk. Now what if that cheerio was able to escape the bowl of milk into weightless space? The same energy that moved the cheerio a single inch in your bowl of milk, will now fling a cheerio easily across the table into another bowl. Why? Well not only has the friction of the milk (time) reduced, it also isn't disintegrating your cheerio quite as rapidly in free-space (or so you'd think), in any case, the end result is exponentially less energy is required to move it. Now think of the planets as cheerios... Still with me? Now consider, c is constant, t is constant, and d is constant... but only to the relative traveler. Now think of the bowls of cheerios as like these bubbles of time, and deep space as kind of like a void where time stops (or speeds up, depending on where you're viewing it from). Fun eh? Now if we were to observe the clocks on something idling in deep space, we'd notice it's clock moving at a tremendous pace. Why? Because if it wanted to, it could basically be in any of the bubbles with an minute iota of energy. And really, everything is all relative to where you're measuring it from, which makes it either a case of, you understand, or you don't. I really need to turn this into a formula. It really does fully explain everything from Lorrentz transformations to the pioneer anomaly, to unifying electromagnetism and light in 1 single piece of work. guhhhhhhhhhh Sorry for wasting your time guys. Thanks for humouring me

I don't understand what the argument is then? Light exists as light? mmmmhm...

You'd have to go much faster than the speed of mach for the drift in frequency to matter in FM or AM radio. And if you could go fast enough, it would actually shift your 93.3 to 93.1 via redshift dopler effect. I don't disagree with any of these clock experiments. But I feel I can explain them with difference in energy potential if you change your thinking, consider c could be a variable (not necessarily from a relativistic sense) c = sqrt( E / m ). Then calculate gravity as an energy through mass gravity conversion inserted into this formula. Relativistically, as the patient observer, sure c is constant... but it's all relative Furthermore, this general ideology would neatly explain not only the Pioneer anomalies, but all of NASA's clock anomalies when shooting towards the sun, and from the sun without resorting to non-sensical dark-matter dark-energy theories. It's extremely simple (in my mind), I just wish I had the educational background the properly explain it and develop equations for it. It's not like I'm a simpleton, I'm a career waveform/lightwave engineer, but I've accomplished it through work experience rather than schooling, as my family couldn't afford to get me into university. My ideologies are not that far off of string theory and quantum entanglement - I don't think I'm reinventing the wheel, I just feel like I REALLY understand it, and I want to find a way to explain it to everyone.

Well, we agree in theory I think the debate clutches on whether time is a constant, or a quasi-constant. And by quasi-constant, I mean, if we were to shoot a rocket around the sun at half light speed and back to Earth: would it's time be significantly dilated? OR would it's onboard clock be near identical upon return? I have found a plethora of evidence to prove the latter IMO, I just haven't found a way to express it through equation yet. And the amount of bad science that is postulated from theory depresses me. As scientists don't we need to see evidence from repeatable tests before we can accept results? How can anybody accept a dark matter / dark energy solution to the universe?? If you think it's the best theory, fine. Detail to me exactly how it explains it. But don't go preaching it as fact, because that's as bad as religion (speaking of conservapedia).

I dunno, maybe the final question I proposed at the end of my original post and the name of the topic. Is the speed of light breakable relative to Earth. And I'd like for any postulation for or against to be backed by evidence via test results. So if you want to suggest Einstein's relativity states that it will take infinite energy to obtain speed of light, then you can cite tests which prove atomic clock differences and lorrentz transformations and all that. But I have a several counter arguments for that, so let's get to it, who has an intelligent debate that doesn't clutch on the unobservable theoretical?

I do have a pretty decent idea for how to unify the whole EM / Light / Matter / Gravity / Radiation equation. And I'd like to go to university to write a mathematical model for it... and I could propose tests to prove my general ideas. But I feel like my time and resources would be better spent inventing and engineering. So I'm gonna do that I think I covered that already, it was mainly an accident through fast googling. Nevermind. This isn't what I'm trying to discuss. As far as I care, if you sat in a spaceship traveling at the speed of light relative to earth, you would still measure the speed of light as 300,000 km/s away from you in every direction.