Time travel in slow time
mitc...@hotmail.com
clock takes you fast into the future of the rest of the universe. By
proper time a small duration has elapsed but the rest of the universe
has aged far into its future. A slow now and a fast now appear the
same. That is proper time. Slow or fast it is still exactly the same
order unfolding.
Mitch Raemsch
G. L. Bradford
<mitc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8c26c00-6f8c-4176...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
The unfolding is (-) to (0) via (+). The traveler is never observably or
communicatively up-to-date with any destination point upon departure from
any departure point. If the traveler could measure the light second to the
destination to be exactly the same second as his clock measures, he's not
getting even a single silly millimeter closer to his destination than when
he was setting at his departure point. He may be going somewhere but he's
detouring his destination keeping a perfect distance from it at all times.
The only way he closes any distance at all with his destination is to
measurably squeeze at least 1.x external light seconds into every one second
of his own his own clock ticks. He knows he's powering to his destination
(constant boost) when that squeeze reaches 2 light seconds per clock second,
3 light seconds per clock second, and so on.
But in our "all history universe" we observe, the unfolding in travel is
always relative history under observation here (-) toward currency and
object reality there (0) ((-) to (0) via (+)). "The slowing of your clock
takes you fast into the future of the rest of the universe," is where you
the traveler are always sitting in a time before time (-), as far as your
destination is always concerned, and travel from it -- futuristically (+) --
to 'now' (0).
I can see it another way as well, from the destination's point of view.
The traveler always comes from the 'future' of the destination (+) to the
destination's 'now' in time (0)! He certainly isn't coming from the
direction of the destination's PAST (in the destination's point of view)! No
traveler ever comes from the direction of the destination's past to now --
always the future to now (in the destination's point of view)!
I've always found it easy to see the traveler's point of view...and the
departure point's point of view (well described over the decades). It's
always been a lot more difficult to see the destination's point of view of
an oncoming traveler. It is a reverse viewpoint, and a reverse direction in
time the traveler is coming from, from the future to now, though still a
picture all futuristic until the exact moment of arrival, now! I'll bet
there are few anywhere that can see the destination's viewpoint I've laid
out here... a traveler's line [future to now]. It happens to be the only way
a traveler can view his departure point in the distance of spacetime -- from
wherever his present locality is -- as being a distant past under
observation. He had to travel [to that distant past] in traveling distantly
away from his departure point....which welds well to the destination's point
of view of the traveler's time travel, future to now rather than past to
now. "He certainly isn't coming from the direction of the destination's PAST
(in the destination's point of view)!"
The cosmological constant is (0)....and it isn't a mistake. It never was
(regarding an infinite Universe being the bigger picture actually, that is).
GLB
Artfishlintlgenz
> <mitchg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
ii the past i thought i understood, presently im not so sure
Edga...@att.net
For a more detailed analysis of what really happens in the twin
paradox and the implications for time travel please see http://EdgarLOwen.com/stc.pdf
Edgar
G=EMC^2 Glazier
waste of time. My theory that space foreshortens in the direction the
space ship is going is reality. I would know if in a space ship going
at 'c' I was moving and not the scenery Bert
Edga...@att.net
Bert,
The twins can't attain speed c relative to each other, that's not the
issue. The issue is why and how, whatever their past velocity
histories, they return to the same shared present time with different
clock times. That's one of the issues that my paper at http://EdgarLOwen.com/stc.pdf
addresses.
Edgar
Androcles
<Edga...@att.net> wrote in message
news:9aac6790-d359-4d42...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 9:24 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
> Edgar best to know twin going at 'c' can do no work,and that makes it a
> waste of time. My theory that space foreshortens in the direction the
> space ship is going is reality. I would know if in a space ship going
> at 'c' I was moving and not the scenery Bert
Bert,
| The twins can't attain speed c relative to each other, that's not the
| issue.
Hey cretin!
What about these twin hadrons depicted here?
http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
THAT's the issue.
Edga...@att.net
> <EdgarO...@att.net> wrote in message
There is no mention of velocities at all in this link but we'll assume
the hadrons are accelerated to near c. You need to understand that
every velocity measurement must always be measured with respect to
some observer's frame. In the frame of either hadron the other hadron
is always moving at less than c velocity. In your frame standing
outside the accelerator both hadrons are moving at less than c also
even though in opposite directions. All such measurements are frame
dependent which is why it is called relativity.
Edgar
Androcles
<Edga...@att.net> wrote in message
news:f2a8c3d7-2c69-4cc5...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 11:28 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> <EdgarO...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:9aac6790-d359-4d42...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 9:24 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
>
> > Edgar best to know twin going at 'c' can do no work,and that makes it a
> > waste of time. My theory that space foreshortens in the direction the
> > space ship is going is reality. I would know if in a space ship going
> > at 'c' I was moving and not the scenery Bert
>
> Bert,
>
> | The twins can't attain speed c relative to each other, that's not the
> | issue.
>
> Hey cretin!
> What about these twin hadrons depicted here?
> http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
>
> THAT's the issue.
| There is no mention of velocities at all in this link but we'll assume
| the hadrons are accelerated to near c.
No, one is accelerated to -c. That means they collide, which is why
LHC is a large hadron collider. Even a 12-year-old can understand that,
cretin. So what number to do put in for v in
E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), shit-for-brains, because the twin hadrons have
a relative velocity greater than c?
| You need to understand that
| every velocity measurement must always be measured with respect to
| some observer's frame.
You need to get a brain, shithead. I want a value for v in
E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), moron, because the twin hadrons have
a relative velocity greater than c.
Here's a hint:
" For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of
light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity." - Albert Cretin Einstein,
ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/,
playing the part, physically, of Bozo the clown in Bozo's Circus.
| In the frame of either hadron the other hadron
| is always moving at less than c velocity.
Are you so fuckin' stupid you can't understand the question?
I want a value for v in
E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
imbecile, because the twin hadrons have a relative velocity greater than c.
| In your frame standing
| outside the accelerator
I'm not interested in my frame standing outside the fuckin' accelerator,
idiot,
you said "The twins can't attain speed c relative to each other", clown.
| both hadrons are moving at less than c also
even though in opposite directions.
The distance around the ring is ~ 27 km and the frequency is a piffling
~ 11 kHz.
That means each hadron travels 27 * 11 * 1000 * 1000 m/s in opposite
directions,
That's 297,000,000 m/s each, a RELATIVE velocity of 594,000 km/s > c,
you incredibly stupid imbecile.
| All such measurements are frame
| dependent which is why it is called relativity.
You are babbling, you shithead. Galilean relativity has been known
since before Galileo. Fuck off with your frame crap, you stupid arse.
Anonymous
> <Edga...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:f2a8c3d7-2c69-4cc5...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 11:28 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>> <EdgarO...@att.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9aac6790-d359-4d42...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 20, 9:24 am, herbertglaz...@webtv.net (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
>>
>> > Edgar best to know twin going at 'c' can do no work,and that makes it a
>> > waste of time. My theory that space foreshortens in the direction the
>> > space ship is going is reality. I would know if in a space ship going
>> > at 'c' I was moving and not the scenery Bert
>>
>> Bert,
>>
>> | The twins can't attain speed c relative to each other, that's not the
>> | issue.
>>
>> Hey cretin!
>> What about these twin hadrons depicted here?
>> http://hands-on-cern.physto.se/ani/acc_lhc_atlas/lhc_atlas.swf
>>
>> THAT's the issue.
>
> | There is no mention of velocities at all in this link but we'll assume
> | the hadrons are accelerated to near c.
>
> No, one is accelerated to -c. That means they collide, which is why
> LHC is a large hadron collider. Even a 12-year-old can understand that,
> cretin. So what number to do put in for v in
> E = mc^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), shit-for-brains,
Ah, that is nostalgic. I can sense the presence of Carl Lydick.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
hanson
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1101-47E...@storefull-3331.bay.webtv.net...
> At 'c' you are every where in the universe at once Bert Sunbeam
>
ahahaha... "at once"?... which is why it takes a photon @ c
already 8 minutes to reach us, let alone the 10s of billions of
years to the lightwall? -- Hebie-Herbie, you probably took 1
of your Viagras again, mounted your 69 year old girl friend
Sunbeam & you came "at once" with your cum "ever where"
... ahahahaha... which gave you the impression that you just
conveyed in your 1-liner above.
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Jeff▲Relf
A. Objects in front of you are blueshifted to infinite inertial mass,
destroying every particle of your being on contact,
so contact is very undesirable.
B. Objects behind you are redshifted to zero,
so contact is impossible.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
hanson
>
ahahahaha.... I am in no hurry to get "with it", Hebie-Herbie.
But, you, feel free to do so, since at your age time may stop
for you anytime soon now anyway ... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Till then thanks for the laughs, Herbie!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
G=EMC^2 Glazier
grave. And have a good laugh when it seeps down on your face.That's a
little morbid but so very true Bert
hanson
Hebie-Herbie "G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net>
CRANKED himself, did "go figure" & uttered urgent re-assurances
to and for himself with:
"Best to keep in mind I'm old but eating MSP "
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... "MSP"?.... "My Stinky Poop"?... hahahaha...
That figures... "Go figure", Hebie-Herbie... It was clear that
you were a kiddie perv, a pedo, when you posted that you
were boning your **11 year younger** Highschool girlfriend
"Sunbeam" again, while your were loaded with Viagra, you
now 80, she 69... ahahahaha... But, Hebie-Herbie, that you
have become, in your final twitches, not only an olde kacker
but also deteriorated into a shit-eater, a coprohiliac.... That
is too much!... .... hahahaha... AHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA....
>
Hebie Herbie, caught with his pants down, and trying to
loosen his diaper, he cranked himself and wrote in anger:
"I, Hebie Herbie, will piss on your grave".
"And have a good laugh when it seeps down on your face.
That's a little morbid but so very true" Bert
>
hanson wrote:
Awe!.. Sorry , Hebie-Herbie, I didn't mean to crank you and
aggravate your prostate problems and remind your of your
paruretic condition... not to speak of your deep yearning for
necrophilia... I just stated facts.. just the facts, Hebie Herbie.
Here they are again for your benefit... Go figure:
>
----------- Go figure-Factoid #1 for Hebie Herbie -----------
G=EMC^2 Glazier" <herbert...@webtv.net> wrote:
Hanson Traveling at 'c' means time has stopped. Get with it Bert
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha.... I am in no hurry to "get with it", Hebie-Herbie.
But, you, feel free to do so, since at your age time may stop
for you anytime soon now anyway ... ahahaha... AHAHA...
Till then thanks for the laughs, Herbie!
ahahaha... ahahahanson
----------- Go figure-Factoid #2 for Hebie Herbie -----------
>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:eFRFj.36931$TT4.3835@attbi_s22...
>
in message news:9610-47E...@storefull-3334.bay.webtv.net
Hebie Herbie aka G=EMC^2 Glazier instructed the other Hebie,
Uncle rect-Al Schwartz, [that] No girl should give away sex for free.
It is the best way for her to work. Pretty and young means big bucks.
It is humankind's first profession. For a man its cheaper than
getting married. Bert
>
hanson wrote:
... wow!... Hebie Herbie, is this an admission that you do
have to pay your 69 year old girl-friend "Sunbeam" when
you attempt to make a Viagra ride on her?.... AHAHAHA...
or does she give you a Hebie-Freebie?... ahahaha....
>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
You know Herb, I used to respect you as an old fart that didn't
know any science... but your sexist and insensitive remarks
make me wonder if I shouldn't stick you in my plonker...
outta sight outta mind.
>
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Sam When does a BH become a WH ? Bert
>>
Sam wrote:
Define what you mean by WH!
>
hanson wrote:
What Hebie-Herbie refers to here is that ONLY
when Black Hebes do become White Hebes
are they allowed to immigrate into Israel...
<http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=571>
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahanson
zzbu...@netscape.net
Since that's the same thing as climbing up on a mountain
and shouting "Time is curved", it's also why people invented
lasers, digital, satelites, and robots for the science idiots.
Since the lasers show quite readily that time is not invariant.
The digital shows spontaneously that the mountain science cranks
are not only fools, but they are continuous fools.
And the satellites proof immediately, that P.V. cells not only
work,
they work particularly well with Exxon idiots.
And the Robots prove what they always proved.
The New York Times and not only idiot Journalists,
but they are, indeed, Manhattan idiot Journalists.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
mitc...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Time is not curved. There is just its slowdown which is the
Mathematical Gamma factor curve. There is no dimensional curvature to
time. It simply slows.
Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008
zzbu...@netscape.net
It only slows to idiots imagining themselves falling into a black
hole.
But since the only thing in black holes is dieing galaxies,
that only proves two things:
Cosmologists have warped imaginations, and there is no
such thng as slow. Since if there was such a thing as slow time
that would only prove that there is also fast time.
>
> Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -
mitc...@hotmail.com
Neutron stars would reveal it and so does high speed motion bunker
> But since the only thing in black holes is dieing galaxies,
> that only proves two things:
> Cosmologists have warped imaginations, and there is no
> such thng as slow. Since if there was such a thing as slow time
> that would only prove that there is also fast time.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
reber G=emc^2
hanson
<reber_A.H...@gmail.com> which anagrams to
<herbert...@gmail.com> aka "reber G=emc^2", wrote:
"inertia and Gravity are two sides to the same coin,.
just like in SwineBert's case where Bert, the Face Shitter
and Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal, are the two
sides of the same coin. Get the picture. TreBert
>
>
To boot:
<http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent> [2]
for posting is very different (see how & why in [2] ),