Dale E Hayes Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 While I do believe the theory does support time travel there are some basic issues. Within the basics of any math, when an error is made in the beginning of the statement, the entire statement becomes void. Before anyone can prove or disprove the theory, 1st they must correct the basic Algebra that everyone know to be incorrect. Also see www.Timecorrections.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale E Hayes Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 How do we know he or she is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 ! Moderator Note Split from time travel thread. Posting speculations in the science section is thread hijacking. Please review the rules If you are going to critique relativity, at least start with Einstein's 1905 paper to cut down on the blatant errors on your site. Time doesn't show up in E=mc^2 — so what? Einstein dealt with that elsewhere in developing relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 While I do believe the theory does support time travel there are some basic issues. Within the basics of any math, when an error is made in the beginning of the statement, the entire statement becomes void. Before anyone can prove or disprove the theory, 1st they must correct the basic Algebra that everyone know to be incorrect. Also see www.Timecorrections.com Your website is fraught with unit errors. A joule times a kilogram divided by a joule is not a second, it's a kilogram. You can't define time in units of mass. There are many other issues with your use of physics terminology and mathematics but lets take this one step at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale E Hayes Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 Your website is fraught with unit errors. A joule times a kilogram divided by a joule is not a second, it's a kilogram. You can't define time in units of mass. There are many other issues with your use of physics terminology and mathematics but lets take this one step at a time. You cannot define energy as time. Energy is a function of time just as mass. My apologies I did not mean to hijack the thread and will not do so again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 You cannot define energy as time. Energy is a function of time just as mass. It doesn't matter what energy is a function of if the units in the equation don't balance. See dimensional analysis. Usually the first topic covered in high school phys/chem. Its all about multiplying and canceling units to get the left and right hand sides of an equation to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Should there not be a rule that says threads based on faulty dimensional analysis don't even get the luxury of the Speculations sub-forum? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) Should there not be a rule that says threads based on faulty dimensional analysis don't even get the luxury of the Speculations sub-forum? Just a thought. Short answer yes. Wait. I mean no...the phrasing has me confused on how to answer. You know what I mean Edited November 22, 2011 by mississippichem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) While I do believe the theory does support time travel there are some basic issues. Within the basics of any math, when an error is made in the beginning of the statement, the entire statement becomes void. Before anyone can prove or disprove the theory, 1st they must correct the basic Algebra that everyone know to be incorrect. Also see www.Timecorrections.com From your site (E1=ME2)= T How did you come to that? I have to admit comments of Swansont, Mississippichem & Ophiolite (in the order of appearance) make sense. Edited November 22, 2011 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale E Hayes Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Did you read the paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The equation E=MC2 is an incomplete statement. From your webpage. Sure, it refers to a very specific frame of the particle, the particles rest frame. This also assumes the particle has a (positive non-zero) mass. The full relation you need is [math]m^{2}c^{4} = E^{2}- p^{2}c^{2}[/math], which are the classical equations of motion for a relativistic particle, massive or massless. That is, all physical particles satisfy the above "mass-shell condition". Here [math]p[/math] is the particles 3-momenta (suppressed indices). This condition holds in all inertial frames of reference. In the rest frame of a massive particle (p=0) the classical equations of motion reduce to [math]E= mc^{2}[/math], taking the positive square root. You are right, time does not appear in the equations of motion, neither does the position. This is actually an important point. The physics does not depend on time or position, this leads to the conservation of the mass of a particle. That is in any inertial reference frame everyone will agree on the [math]m^{2}c^{4}[/math] term, but not necessarily separately [math]E[/math] or [math]p[/math]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Time is in C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 The web counter on your site says it all.... "While I do believe the theory does support time travel" It doesn't really support time travel, it just doesn't rule it out. There's a big difference Science hasn't ruled out the possibilty of "the flying spaghetti monster" buts it's doubtful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Time is in C. You should certainly think of [math]c[/math] as a universal constant that relates space and time. That is [math]c dt[/math] has units of length. In part because of this special relativity is based on the mixing of space and time: the Lorentz transformation do not preserve space and time separately between inertial frames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale E Hayes Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 (edited) From your webpage. Sure, it refers to a very specific frame of the particle, the particles rest frame. This also assumes the particle has a (positive non-zero) mass. The full relation you need is [math]m^{2}c^{4} = E^{2}- p^{2}c^{2}[/math], which are the classical equations of motion for a relativistic particle, massive or massless. That is, all physical particles satisfy the above "mass-shell condition". Here [math]p[/math] is the particles 3-momenta (suppressed indices). This condition holds in all inertial frames of reference. In the rest frame of a massive particle (p=0) the classical equations of motion reduce to [math]E= mc^{2}[/math], taking the positive square root. You are right, time does not appear in the equations of motion, neither does the position. This is actually an important point. The physics does not depend on time or position, this leads to the conservation of the mass of a particle. That is in any inertial reference frame everyone will agree on the [math]m^{2}c^{4}[/math] term, but not necessarily separately [math]E[/math] or [math]p[/math]. Thank you: You are the 1st to understand one of the points. Do you believe mass exists if time does not? Edited February 24, 2012 by Dale E Hayes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Do you believe mass exists if time does not? You will need to clarify what you mean here. I might guess that you are going to say something like "the time as experienced by a photon" or something very similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now