https://www.academia.edu/122103643/theoretical_practical_timetravel_using_boundary_functions_of_gravitational_fields_orbits_and_gravitational_wavesnew paper on time travel uploaded to academia.edu
any questions technical or otherwise?
>>16283826Post pdf here I’m not signing up for shit.Fix your definitions. Point A, then switches to particle B and C??? Try point A, gravity well A&B. Use less words trying to make your sound smart.
>>16283880its the whole pdf, this picture.Excuse me i'm fleshing it out but this is a starting framework.
>>16283826That is not how time dilation works
>>16283961Care to elaborate
>>16283983Time dilation is a relativistic effect
>>16284031yes i know"Time dilation is the difference in elapsed time as measured by two clocks, either because of a relative velocity between them (special relativity), or a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativity). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity."its addressed for in the paper
>>16284058>its addressed for in the paperNo, it isn't, as the second sentence is already wrong in it's assumption.
>>16284084this checks out for every definition of time dilation"Clocks that are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run more quickly, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run more slowly."
>>16284087*relative to eachotheryou can observe the same event occuring at two different points in time, but the time at which the event occurs is still the same for all observers
>>16284100about the semantics you're right. the paper takes that into consideration aswell.
>>16284102Then what is the point, you don't need any gravitational influence to observe something at different points in time, just shake your hand really fast and you'll see multiple images
>>16284109that is actually like what you suggested the calculations are just a wee bit more precise i believe. just a bit
>>16284119Whatever you wrote is irrelevant, as your premise is already faulty.
>>16284212i'm more interested in whether it will work than whether i chose the wrong wording. i see no fault with the method.Your likely response is "it will not" as a passionate critic however you likely havent done that experiment.
>>16284212i'm not sure youre right about thathttps://www.space.com/33411-astronaut-scott-kelly-relativity-twin-brother-ages.html
>>16284224You have no idea what is being said there
>>16284325ok einstein
