Achieve intent of time travel via frequency travel?

RainmanTime

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
FACT: Time is a dimension whose multiplicative inverse (reciprocal) dimension we call Frequency.

FACT: Where we describe & quantify Time in metrics of seconds, fractions of seconds, and collections of seconds (minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years)...

We also describe & quantify Frequency in metrics of Hertz (or Rads) and collections of those units. 

PROPOSED: Whatever intention you can describe for the concepts of Time Travel can, should, and do have a reciprocal description (& engineering definition) in the Frequency Travel concept. 

CHALLENGE: Learn how to achieve the intent of TT by exploring Frequency Travel...and all it's implications.

Your Thoughts in Response?

RMT

 
I don't accept your facts as to what time is.

Has it been shown that the flow of time is the same for all the individual basic forces of nature? Don't observations suggest otherwise?

I suspect without proof yet that we will have to master the flow of time for each basic force before we will understand how they work together to create the overall direction of time we all experience. That is not armchair physics. Just good old fashioned data gathering.

 
"PROPOSED: Whatever intention you can describe for the concepts of Time Travel can, should, and do have a reciprocal description (& engineering definition) in the Frequency Travel concept. "

I do not possess as much knowledge of Physics as you, so please consider me a student of the topic.  I've considered frequency in my thought process and thought about using sound as a method of time travel.  My only problem is, what exactly am I trying to accomplish?  I determined, and I do not know if I am correct, that sound would travel fastest through liquid and metal, so I wondered if we could achieve faster than light sound waves by using a circular vat of liquid mercury.   Would anything happen?  I apologize if it sounds off the wall.  I didn't really have a goal in mind but pondered what would happen to sound frequencies if they traveled faster than the speed of light.  And then, I wondered how we could do it.  I came up with this.

 
[QUOTE='Einstein]I don't accept your facts as to what time is.
Has it been shown that the flow of time is the same for all the individual basic forces of nature? Don't observations suggest otherwise?

I suspect without proof yet that we will have to master the flow of time for each basic force before we will understand how they work together to create the overall direction of time we all experience. That is not armchair physics. Just good old fashioned data gathering.
[/QUOTE]One great thing about facts is that they still remain facts even if you don't accept them. Everything I marked as a fact IS a fact. And the Laplace & Fourier Transforms have proven the mathematical connection between time & frequency domains over & over again by predicting the outcome of actual experiments. The fundamentals of control system analysis to predict time domain system response via frequency domain analysis are why airplanes fly safely today.

It's nice to see (not) that even after more than 10 years since our last disagreements that you've remained steadfastly opposed to the facts of how mathematics models & predicts aspects of the physical world. Your namesake would be shaming you for your arrogant ignorance.

RMT

 
[QUOTE='PaulaJedi]"PROPOSED: Whatever intention you can describe for the concepts of Time Travel can, should, and do have a reciprocal description (& engineering definition) in the Frequency Travel concept. "
I do not possess as much knowledge of Physics as you, so please consider me a student of the topic.  I've considered frequency in my thought process and thought about using sound as a method of time travel.  My only problem is, what exactly am I trying to accomplish?  I determined, and I do not know if I am correct, that sound would travel fastest through liquid and metal, so I wondered if we could achieve faster than light sound waves by using a circular vat of liquid mercury.   Would anything happen?  I apologize if it sounds off the wall.  I didn't really have a goal in mind but pondered what would happen to sound frequencies if they traveled faster than the speed of light.  And then, I wondered how we could do it.  I came up with this.
[/QUOTE]That's the right way to begin to think about it. But now, expand your thinking beyond sound! The sounds that humans can hear are a small (DRASTICALLY SMALL) part of the infinite band of frequencies. The same goes for the limited frequency band of the human eyes.

Understand that we, as beings, can only comprehend time via our observations of how matter moves (I've explained in other posts that one mathematical definition of time is literally Matter in Motion). This means that the bandwidth limits on our human senses restrict our knowledge about time to only those things we can observe. That is why humans have designed devices (sensors, like RADAR as one example) that help us observe phenomena outside the bandwidth limits of our human senses.

Here is a thought experiment for you: Imagine what your eyes would perceive if their ability to sense was not limited to the red thru violet frequency bands! What if your eyes had "infinite bandwidth?" Not only would you be able to "see what sound looks like" (your eyes would image the lower frequencies where our ears hear sound), but your eyes would also be able to see all of the high frequency signals flying around our planet resulting from our high tech radio devices. 

When you start to consider this thought experiment, you may come to understand that the ordering of events that we perceive as the mundane definition of "time" really cannot be the entire picture of how the universe works. This thought experiment can also help you approach an understanding of what the REAL Einstein proved to us about time in his statements about relative simultaneity not being a "real" (palpable) truth in our scientific world. Said another way, what we as humans observe as two events happening simultaneously is not real. It is an illusion that falls out of the bandwidth limitations of our sensory apparatus, and how our minds use those limited apparatuses to place events in a time sequenced order.

Time, when considered separate from the other dimensions of space & mass, is not truth, but an approximation of truth. The actual truth is that mass, space, & time are mutually interacting dimensions. To try to pull one away from the others leads to errors in the underlying truth. While your mind may only be perceiving a single timeline that you exist upon, the reality of you, as a complete being, is so much more rich than what your mind reports to you.

Imagine the truth that there is "another Paula." One you may believe is separate from you, but you are intimitaley connected! That "other Paula" has sensory apparatuses that operate in DIFFERENT frequency bands from yours. You both exist in what appear to be "different worlds." But in reality you both exist in the same world, and the only reason you believe you are different is because you live in different, isolated frequency wells.

RMT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The belief that time "flows" independent of space & mass is an erroneous conclusion delivered to you by your limited (imperfect) senses. Spacetime is a much closer approximation to reality than treating time as an independent dimension. But even spacetime is still an approximation. Spacetime, independent of mass is not a conserved quantity. Only those metrics which include all three fundamental dimensions (mass, space, AND time) can exhibit conservation laws. Study the work of Emmy Noether, as her work in differential calculus (specifically Noether's Theorem) represent a fundamental underpinning of why only mathematical treatments that include mass, space, and time can ensure continuity of physical states, and thereby prove physical conservation laws.

If you examine the fundamental units of ALL important, validated physics equations you will see they all share one thing in common. Namely, they all express fundamental facts about physics as integrated measures on the manifold I call Massive SpaceTime. Towhit:

F = ma yields units of Mass*Length/Time^2

E = mc^2 yields units of Mass*Length^2/Time^2

P = mV yields units of Mass*Length/Time

Unfortunately, you will never be successful in convincing anyone you have discovered some new aspect of the physics of Massive SpaceTime until you can quantify the mathematics that describe those new aspects. If the math doesn't work (balance) the odds of it being factual are very, VERY low.

RMT
Click to expand...
 
It appears you've passed my test affirming that you are indeed RainmanTime. No one else has your unique signature of piling on more bullshit higher and deeper than your initial post. Totally bypassing a unique opportunity to answer real questions.

It is very difficult for anyone to accept math models these days due to their fallible use in GPS, weather forecast, and climatology.

 
'Einstein]It appears you've passed my test affirming that you are indeed RainmanTime. No one else has your unique signature of piling on more bullshit higher and deeper than your initial post. Totally bypassing a unique opportunity to answer real questions. It is very difficult for anyone to accept math models these days due to their fallible use in GPS said:
Unfortunately, your questions are not "real" because they are founded upon the fallible belief that your human senses always report "the truth" to you.

There is a giant difference between a "math model" and the foundational mathematics that quantify physical interactions. I completely agree that both climate, and to a lesser extent, weather models are highly fallible, especially as to how "experts" arrive at conclusions about what those math models tell them. The mathematics used in GPS for relativistic corrections to position and time, while not perfect, are much more accurate than all prior position determinating systems, combined. This is because no physical implementation of any pure mathematical concept can ever be completely precise. The N-body problem in orbital mechanics should make this obvious to any casual observer.

Let's take the climate models. They are ALL based upon the battle tested Navier-Stokes partial differential equations. These are battle tested because they have never been falsified. The reason there are so many variations of climate models is the problem, and it stems from the assumptions & considerations of simplifications that individual model developers must make in order to get their models to execute. There is always the problem of the "unknown unknowns." Even if one could accurately describe all the variations in atmospheric temperature, pressure, density, humidity, & ionization, there would still be the problems of knowing initial conditions to a sufficient degree of accuracy. By far, the largest (and we are talking massive) hole in ALL the climate models is they cannot account for how precipitation occurs & how it modifies local temperates on their finite difference grids. For example: NONE of the climate models can simulate or explain the very simple concept of virga, which is rain that falls from clouds as droplets but never strikes the ground before it turns from droplets to water vapor.

But the fact you conflate approximate math model implementations with formalized mathematical descriptions of physical reality is not surprising to me. It reveals the limitations of your knowledge. And all you do is attempt to cover up those limitations with your hubris. Perfect example is using a blanket assessment of "bullshit" to everything I write without pointing out precisely what aspect of my writing you believe is erroneous. You haven't changed a bit. Moreover, unlike you, I KNOW all of my descriptions contain some levels of errors & imprecision. And if, instead of making blanket assessments to dispel what I write, if you actually pointes to specific statements, you would find that I am more than willing to admit to where the errors of approximations are contained in my writings. You should try it sometime. 

RMT
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As you may or may not recall I totally eviscerated the concept of mass quite a while back. I believe it merely exists on paper just so scientists can claim it has to exist or the fictitious model of physics they created would crumble. Mass = Fairy dust is the only way the math models will work.

So please do attempt to convince me that mass is real.

Almost forgot, I'm providing a Democratic platform for you to make your case.


 
[QUOTE='Einstein]As you may or may not recall I totally eviscerated the concept of mass quite a while back. I believe it merely exists on paper just so scientists can claim it has to exist or the fictitious model of physics they created would crumble. Mass = Fairy dust is the only way the math models will work.
[/QUOTE]

Yawn. You've eviscerated absolutely nothing. But you do like to talk big & pretend. But once again, I can & do align with the gist of this idea, because as I have made clear above, any of the three primary dimensions (Mass Space Time) are nothing but approximations when taken by themselves. So sure, I'll play along with that name game: Mass cannot & does not exist without SpaceTime. That's because Mass tells SpaceTime how to bend, and SpaceTime tells Mass how to move. It's an intricate dance, and when you try to separate them you introduce errors & (the big clue) you uncover contradictions at some level.

But the effects that we see from Mass, namely inertia, are very real & very much quantified in the laws of physics that include SpaceTime, such as those I've cited above, and more. 

Still cannot point to anything specific I've said & explain why it's wrong? Yep, cuz that's your one trick pony. 

RMT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Einstein

Go ahead. Try picking out any one of the scientific facts I've pointed you to, and try to convince me they are wrong. Why don't you start by exposing the fallacies of Emmy Noether by explaining what's wrong with Noether's Theorem? It is merely the foundation of all conservation laws of physics, which have yet to be Popper-falsified. Hell, you could win a Nobel Prize if you could Popper-Falsify any of the battle tested physics mathematics.

RMT

 
You can't falsify bullshit. It's already false. Nobody gets a Nobel Prize for exposing the scientific community for the frauds they are. Facts aren't peer reviewed. Only falsifiable theories are. God does play dice with the universe. Einstein would hate that fact.

Observations are facts. Here are a couple of dice for you:


 
And this is your typical bullshit. Pretend generalized debunking. You can't do anything specific, because you do not even understand the underlying physics of what you claim to debunk. Hell, it's even worse, you don't understand the math. And that really is the height of your arrogance: you don't understand something, ergo you conclude it is bullshit. How mature! How scientific!

Not only do you not understand the mathematical construct of a tensor (nor what makes a tensor covariant or contravariant) you do not even have an intuitive (much less technical) understanding of Einstein's metric tensor and how fundamental it is to the battle-tested, still not falsified, general relativity tensor equation.

And your slinky video? LMAO. Yep, another exhibition of your lack of understanding! And the funny thing is, you think it is insightful, amazing, and you want people to pay attention to you because you think you've found something unexplained. In reality, any engineering graduate with a knowledge of flexible (non-rigid) structural mechanics can explain it perfectly. But they would do it with tensor math, and that's where the blank stare would appear on your face because you do not understand tensors as mathematical explanations of physical reality.

Keep thinking you're on the bleeding edge. Keep congratulating yourself. The height of ignorant arrogance!

RMT
Click to expand...
 
Did I push your bullshit defense button? Bruised ego? Or your faulty belief systems? Possibly I just discovered that you have no cognitive abilities at all in the subject matter you profess to have. And zero observational skills. Of course it could be just a simple case of schizophrenic delusions of grandeur. Sadly there is no cure for that.

 
[QUOTE='Einstein]Did I push your bullshit defense button? Bruised ego? Or your faulty belief systems? Possibly I just discovered that you have no cognitive abilities at all in the subject matter you profess to have. And zero observational skills. Of course it could be just a simple case of schizophrenic delusions of grandeur. Sadly there is no cure for that.
[/QUOTE]Yeah, ummmmm, no...none of the above fantasies. Let's recall: YOU are the one with demonstrable "schizophrenic delusions of grandeur":

1) You are the one elevating yourself without any demonstrable engineering knowledge with the "Einstein" moniker.

2) You are the one who actually believes you have falsified battle-tested physics which have been proven through their implementation in many engineering products.

3) You are the one looking at a decidedly Newtonian object as a slinky believing you have an alternate, unproven observation about it despite the fact that spring dynamics were known well before you were even a challenged sperm swimmer in your Mama's coochie.

It's all you, man.

RMT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[QUOTE='Einstein]Perhaps you should observe first before you speak.

[/QUOTE]As usual, all you've got are vague generalities. You do realize that no one takes you seriously when all you do for "debate" is throw out generalizations?

But congrats for getting taken in by the video's click bait title. And the answer to the click bait question is : No. Not in the slightest!

You see, because I don't stop at observing (which I did do. Watched the whole video before commenting). The next functional steps after observing are analyzing, modeling, and quantifying. It's safe to say you've done none of those because, much like a child who is amazed by a magic trick, you are under the mistaken assumption that observing with your senses can never lie to you.

The video is not a statics problem. It involves dynamics from the moment the slinky is released at the top. Additionally, there is precisely zero point in identifying or tracking the center of gravity of the slinky, because this is also not a rigid body problem. The slinky is, obviously, elastic. And as such you cannot assume a 1 Degree Of Freedom (DOF), rigid body formulation to predict the slinky's motion. Although, the gentleman in the video does allude to how this problem must be solved in order to explain the aspects of the slinky motion in this situation. Prior to release the slinky is in a stressed state. It is not in its natural, relaxed spring state. Once you release it from the top, the stress will flow. Yes, stress can & does actually flow through an elastic structure. You need to model the stress flux within the slinky to predict it's motion. If you even know the elements of Einstein's general relativity equation you will see there is a stress-energy term that is used to predict things exactly like this.

Of course, since I teach a class in kinematics I can actually model the situation of the slinky in that video. But showing you how to do it would be casting pearls before swine. So rather than throwing out your usual, vague, unspecific nonsense, how about you make some risky claims for what you believe is happening in the video? Because observation alone doesn't cut it in the real world 

RMT

 
I am not convinced that mankind knows enough about gravity to immediately jump to mathematical models to explain what happens. I've never seen you use math to explain anything so far.

In my mind the video suggested to me that I want more data. Objects under the influence of gravity usually experience weight when stationary and supported. Objects in free-fall are weightless. Does the bottom part of the slinky experience weightlessness or weight?

This wasn't the video that blew my mind though. I believe Veritasium mentioned in one of his slinky videos that a weight was attached to the bottom of the slinky with identical results. Now one of the rules of gravity is that weight does not influence gravitational acceleration. All objects accelerate the same. The video that did blow my mind was a similar experiment was done with a bungee cord and a pickup truck suspended and released from the top of a crane. The pickup truck exhibited the same delayed fall pattern. It did fall after the bungee cord finished its collapse. So weight doesn't seem to matter. When I eventually find the truck video I'll post it. Anyone that makes a device that would simulate the torsion wave collapse would probably have a working antigravity engine. Seems like one could use something like that to move big stone slabs to build pyramids with ease.

You still have not made any mention of the second link to the spinning wingnut.

 
I did find a video where Veritasium attached a tennis ball to the bottom of a slinky demonstrating his claim that attaching weight to the bottom of a falling slinky produces the same delayed fall pattern.


 
Well, just because you do not remember me using math in this forum does not mean I have not done it.  Besides, knowing your attitude towards math, I know that you would pretend it is useless only because you may not understand it.  I distinctly recall using vector mathematics and kinematics equations to show someone (not sure it was you) how they were misinterpreting the motion of some sort of contraption they had envisioned as "defying the laws of physics."  TBH, I cannot be sure it was you and do not have the time to search thru this forum (a lot of the old threads are quite mangled, especially when it comes to graphics that I embedded as URL references).

I do not have time to reply to your two posts above right now.  I am working on a design memo for my latest UAV development customer and it needs to be done by week's end.  But I shall return and reply to the above by the weekend.  I appreciate the much more civil tone in our discussions.

RMT
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top