Is this evidence of COP>1 ?

[TinMan]

A quick search for opposing views on Bob Lazar and this page is top pick:

http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2011.01.07

This page contains a link to Lazar Critique by Dr. David L. Morgan:

In 1996, I was asked to review the content of  a Bob Lazar website by an online acquaintance. Since then, my critique has been posted to Usenet discussion boards, featured on web pages, and taken on something of a life of its own. I still get email about it monthly, which is quite amusing, considering it's been almost 5 years since I wrote it. Since the original posting was intended to be an informal email, the tone was somewhat harsh and flippant, and some sections were a bit too dismissive. I decided recently that I would try to put together a  revision of the now-infamous paper. That revision is presented below.

After reading an account by Bob Lazar of the "physics" of his Area 51 UFO propulsion system, my conclusion is this: Mr. Lazar presents a scenario which, if it is correct, violates a whole handful of currently accepted physical theories. That in and of itself does not necessarily mean that his scenario is impossible. But the presentation of the scenario by Lazar is troubling from a scientific standpoint.  Mr. Lazar on many occasions demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding of current physical theories. On no occasion does he acknowledge that his scenario violates physical laws as we understand them, and on no occasion does he offer up any hints of new theories which would make his mechanism possible. Mr. Lazar has a propensity for re-defining scientific terms, and using scientific language in a confusing and careless way. For these reasons, I don't feel that Lazar's pseudo-scientific ramblings are really worthy of any kind of serious consideration.

I will focus on the parts of Lazar's text which I took the most exception with- most of these excerpts relate to particle physics, which is my field. Lazar's text is in boldface. He begins by describing the principle behind interstellar travel...

This is accomplished by generating an intense gravitational field and using that field to distort space/time, bringing the destination to the source, and allowing you to cross many light years of space in little time and without traveling in a linear mode near the speed of light.

I'm less bothered by the wording of this passage now than I used to be, although I still think it's misleading. If you are distorting spacetime with a gravitational field, it produces a very specific kind of distortion, and a very specific kind of attraction. That's what gravity IS – a distortion in spacetime, at least according to general relativity. And gravity attracts EVERYTHING. A gravitational field is a gravitational field...you can't pick and choose which objects it has an effect on. So, going by what Lazar says here, I still say that if you were to generate a gravitational field intense enough to warp spacetime and "bring the destination to the source" you'll also bring everything else in the nearby universe to the source too! If Mr. Lazar had really distorted spacetime like this back in his "Area 51" lab, every object on the face of the Earth would have rushed into New Mexico. Before they crashed back in the 50's, the alien saucers would have sucked the Earth right out of orbit!

Now I'm no expert in general relativity, but I believe that there ARE solutions in GR which do involve distortions of spacetime that are not "gravitational" in nature. (In other words they would not "attract" things outside of the distortion.) There are serious scientists that do serious work on wormholes and warp bubbles and other mechanisms which could allow faster-than-light travel by taking advantage of distortions in spacetime. As this research stands right now, it seems clear that the energy requirements which would be required by this kind of travel are unimaginable by any standards – even the most fanciful extrapolations of alien technology. I'm talking about an entire star's-worth or even a galaxy's-worth of energy! More mass/energy than could be contained in a tiny saucer, or even all of New Mexico for that matter.

There are currently two main theories about gravity. The "wave" theory which states that gravity is a wave, and the other is a theory which includes "gravitons", which are alleged sub-atomic particles which perform as gravity, which by the way, is total nonsense.

These statements by Lazar are "total nonsense". There is only ONE currently accepted theory of gravity: General Relativity. In GR, gravity is described as a distortion of spacetime, not as a particle or a wave. There are phenomena known as "gravitational waves" which exist in GR, but this does not seem to be what Lazar is talking about. Lazar says that gravity IS a wave. It isn't a wave. The "gravitons" which he speaks of are a feature of QUANTUM gravitational theories, and I think they require a little explanation.

All physicists realize that the theories of QM and GR are incomplete, because they are mutually incompatible. In order to have a complete theory, theoretical physicists are looking to combine the two into a unified theory which will involve a quantum theory of gravity. There are currently no quantum theories of gravity that work.  But even though a satisfactory theory does not yet exist, there is nothing at all nonsensical about gravitons. When an adequate quantum theory of gravity IS formulated, the energy of the gravitational field will be quantized. This quantum of the gravitational field is what physicists call the graviton. It is no more nonsensical than the photon - which is the quantum of the electromagnetic field.

(To add to the confusion of Lazar's statement, in any quantum theory of gravity, as in all quantum theories, the graviton will be, in a sense, BOTH a particle AND a wave!)

The fact that gravity is a wave has caused mainstream scientists to surmise numerous sub-atomic particles which don't actually exist and this has caused great complexity and confusion in the study of particle physics.

As a particle physicist, I must say that I have NO IDEA what he is talking about here. Surmising particles that don't exist? I can't think of a single particle whose existence has been postulated as a result of gravitational theories. Perhaps the graviton is one, but that's about it.

You must have at least an atom of substance for it to be considered "matter". At least a proton and an electron and in most cases a neutron. Anything short of an atom such as upquarks and downquarks which make up protons and neutrons; or protons, neutrons, or electrons, individually are considered to be mass and do not constitute "matter" until they form an atom.

These are peculiar and nonstandard definitions. The standard use of the term "matter" includes anything which has mass. Even a single quark is considered to be a particle of matter. If a quark isn't "matter" than what is it? All elementary particles are either matter particles or force-carrying particles. An electron is a mater particle, and so is a quark.

It may seem like a small point, but I think that errors like these are what  make Lazar's "theory" so dubious. How can we give much consideration to someone who claims to be overthrowing the foundations of particle physics, when it's fairly obvious that  he isn't even familiar with the terminology?

Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the "strong nuclear force" in mainstream physics ...

This is the place where Lazar begins to get him self in real trouble. As it is understood now, the strong nuclear force has NOTHING TO DO WITH GRAVITY. Such a statement shows either a complete lack of understanding of the physics of the Standard Model of particle interactions, or a BLATANT attempt at deception. The equations and coupling strengths which describe the two forces are totally different and unrelated. The strong force couples only to quarks and gluons. The gravitational force couples to all particles with mass. The strong force is extremely short range. The range of gravity is infinite. The gravitational coupling constant is orders of magnitude smaller than that of the strong interaction. There is NO BASIS for using the word "gravity" to describe the strong interaction IN ANY WAY.

If Mr. Lazar has formulated a NEW model in which the two forces are really the same, then he has unified gravity with the other three forces of nature, and he should publish it now and collect his Nobel Prize. If he DOES NOT have such a new theory then his statement here is ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

It's not good enough to just call the strong interaction "gravity A wave". You've got to demonstrate that it actually has SOMETHING to do with gravity if you're going to attach that name to it! The words by themselves are meaningless. I want to see some equations. Otherwise, this statement is not only wrong, but utterly incomprehensible.

...it should be obvious that a large, single star system, binary star system, or multiple star system would have had more of the prerequisite mass and electromagnetic energy present during their creations.

Now we get into some fuzzy astronomy.  Mr. Lazar doesn't seem to understand where heavy elements come from, or how they are formed.

First we have to assume that when Lazar says "large" he means "massive." The "largeness" of a star says nothing about its mass. In five or ten billion years, the sun will be as large as the orbit of Mars. A star's size changes drastically during its lifetime. It's pretty clear that what Lazar should be talking about here is the MASS of the star.

The next section is a little vague, but he SEEMS to be suggesting that his element 115, the alien fuel source, which doesn't exist on the Earth, should be present in those solar systems that were more massive at their inception. The implication here is that a star system which condensed out of a more massive primordial cloud should have a greater abundance of heavier elements. This is quite incorrect.

Heavy elements – all elements heavier than iron – are not formed during the normal life cycles of stars. The only time when these nuclei are "cooked" is during the collapse and subsequent explosion of supernovae. The supernova explosion then spreads heavy elements throughout the galaxy. For this reason, the abundances of heavy elements in any particular star system depend NOT upon the properties of the current star, but on the properties of the nearby stars of the PREVIOUS GENERATION! Therefore, all of the star systems in a particular region of the galaxy will have essentially the same abundances of heavy elements, regardless of the mass of star. If element 115 is STABLE, as Lazar claims it to be, then it should be created in supernova explosions and it should exist EVERYWHERE!

The most important attribute of these heavier, stable elements is that the gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own gravity A field around them...

No naturally occurring atoms on earth have enough protons and neutrons for the cumulative gravity A wave to extend past the perimeter of the atom...

Since Mr. Lazar has already identified this gravity A wave with the nuclear force, he is essentially claiming that the nuclear force of element 115 extends beyond the limits of the "115-ium" atom. (I'm tempted to call it Lazarium...and somewhat surprised that he doesn't!!) This is simply not possible, given the known properties of the nuclear force. The past 50 years of probing the nucleus have taught us that the range of the nuclear force is VERY short, and protons and neutrons only feel the pull of their nearest neighbors in a nucleus. Because of this fact, the nuclear force extends out to about the same distance away from a nucleus NO MATTER HOW MASSIVE THE NUCLEUS IS. This fact is fundamental to the science of nuclear physics.

Once again, if Mr. Lazar has a NEW MODEL of the nuclear interaction which explains the properties and decay rates of known nuclei...which can predict the abundances of elements synthesized in the Big Bang...which can describe all of the properties of nuclear reactions which take place inside of stars...all as well as our current theories do all of these things (which is VERY well!) then he should publish it and collect his Nobel Prize. If not, then once again his statements make NO SENSE in the light of everything that we know about nuclear interactions.

Now even though the distance that the gravity A wave extends past the perimeter of the atom is infinitesimal, it is accessible and it has amplitude, wavelength and frequency, just like any OTHER wave in the electromagnetic spectrum. Once you can access the gravity A wave, you can amplify it just like we amplify OTHER electromagnetic waves.

(MY EMPHASIS)
I have emphasized the use of the word "other" in this paragraph to show that Mr. Lazar apparently thinks that his "gravity A wave", which if you recall, is also the strong nuclear force, is ALSO an electromagnetic wave. Perhaps he HAS formulated a "Grand Unified Theory" after all! Or perhaps this is just another example of his careless use of scientific terms.

Conclusions

I want to take some time here to talk about scientific progress, because there is one common objection to my critique of Lazar's scenario. People will often say "Modern science could be wrong. Newton was wrong! Lazar could be right!" Yes. That is correct. In fact, modern science almost certainly IS "wrong." But the only real test of a theory in science is that it works. Newton's Laws worked. They still do in most situations. Einstein's theories are better – they are more accurate and they work in more situations. New theories will continue to come along that are more precise and more generally applicable than the older theories, and these new theories will be tested by experiments until they supplant the old ones. That is how science has progressed for the past 400 years.

So it is not enough to SAY  that modern science is wrong. You have to demonstrate that you have something that is better. And that "better" theory needs to do everything that the old theory does, and then do more. And chances are that it won't completely turn the old theory on it's head – because we already know that the old theories work too well. It is not possible to create a new theory until you understand the old one well enough to present a coherent alternative. Calling current science "total nonsense" is nice rhetoric, and no doubt convincing to many non-scientists who feel alienated from science and look on scientists as a kind of modern priesthood of arcane knowledge. But science is a process – not a body of knowledge.

I can't possibly demonstrate conclusively that Lazar's mechanism is impossible. All that I can hope to demonstrate here is that his scenario would require a COMPLETE overhaul of our theories of gravity and particle physics in order to work. Not just some minor changes...I'm talking from the ground up. Mr. Lazar makes no mention of this fact, and he proposes no alternative theories. But, if Lazar's scenario is true, then we will NEED some new theories, because we are wrong about a great many things. We don't understand gravity. We don't understand nuclear interactions. We don't understand spacetime. We don't understand stellar evolution. However, considering Mr. Lazar's careless use of language, his casual redefinition of scientific terms, and the complete lack of details in his presentation, I'm willing to bet the farm that it is actually Lazar who doesn't understand any of these things.

But wait.....There's an addendum!!

Lazar explains on his current webpage (www.boblazar.com) how his element 115 not only serves as the generator of the Gravity A wave, but ALSO as the fuel for a matter/antimatter reactor that powers the rest of the saucer. Let's take a close look at Lazar's explanation of this reactor...

"The power source is a reactor. Inside the reactor, element 115 is bombarded with a proton, which plugs into the nucleus of the 115 atom and becomes element 116, which immediately decays and releases or radiates small amounts of anti-matter. The anti-matter is released in a vacuum into a tuned tube, which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The matter, which in this case is the gas, and the anti-matter, collide and annihilate totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near one hundred percent efficient thermoelectric generator. "

Lots of impressive sounding stuff about reactors and bombarding with protons and all that. But read it again. Antimatter and matter are converted into energy. Fine. But where does the antimatter come from? From element 115 when it is "bombarded with a proton" by the ship's reactor.  Hmmm. And just exactly HOW MUCH energy would your reactor have to put into each proton to have it create an antiproton?? Well, exactly the mass energy of an antiproton! And how much energy do you get back out when the antiproton annihilates? EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT YOU PUT INTO CREATING IT!!

(Actually, you can't just make an antiproton by itself, you have to make a proton/anti-proton pair. So your reactor needs to put in 2 "protons-worth" of mass-energy into each proton in the beam.)

If you have to MAKE your own antimatter on board, your system produces NO NET ENERGY AT ALL!! You put 2 protons worth of energy in, and you get 2 protons worth of energy out! In fact, the BEST this system could do would be to make ZERO energy, but in fact, it would more likely USE far more energy than it would make.

Conservation of energy rears it's ugly head, and once again - it looks like Bob's saucer is going nowhere fast!

I have highlighted in bold a statement by Dr. David L. Morgan that many in this community should attempt to grasp!

Sounds to much like good old scientist and physicist don't want some other fellow coming up with something they don't know about-situation normal.
As far as it taking just as much(if not more)power to produce antimatter than what you would get back from it is just rubbish. It doesn't have to be produced,it only needs to be separated. Lets look at crude oil and gasoline. The gasoline which has the higher energy per unit volume also has to be separated from the crude oil,and it doesn't take as much energy to separate it than what you get back.

It's always the same shit with this stuff and physicist,-->if we don't know about it,it is wrong-bla bla bla.
No wonder we are getting no where. Once again,a case of those having no clue as to what gravity is(the gravitational force) saying some one else doesn't know what there talking about

[Aking.21]

And the really funny thing is that the Einstein equations are used in GPS and they work perfectly.

Funny that.

[TinMan]

And the really funny thing is that the Einstein equations are used in GPS and they work perfectly.

Funny that.

And a GPS has !what! to do with creating antimatter?

[TinMan]

The important aspect of Lazar's testimony is not the element 115. I actually found that  part  disappointing - because it is exotic science.
I have been involved in some research I cannot talk about, and what convinced me was the space time manoeuvres and the candle effect
during frozen time.
At the very least you can understand why inertia is not a problem, why right angle manoeuvres are easy and why ufo's are mostly invisible unless
stationary.
Hint ufo watchers:  Get some infra red/night vision.  Ufo's leave a heat trail.

I don't blame people for their statements because they are based on their experience.
I make statements based on my experience.

I've probably actually said enough on these matters.
Those in the know are aware of what I am talking about.
The scientific theories aren't wrong - they are just incomplete.

I have been involved in some research I cannot talk about

Of course you have

I've probably actually said enough on these matters.

As usual-like all such claiments,you have actually said nothing at all.

Those in the know are aware of what I am talking about.

Those in the know are more often than not,those that no nothing at all. No one will know what your talking about Aking,as you havnt talked about anything.

The scientific theories aren't wrong - they are just incomplete.

They are incomplete because those in the know dont really know.

[Allcanadian]

@Aking.21

Hint ufo watchers:  Get some infra red/night vision.  Ufo's leave a heat trail.

A while back I was thinking about my UFO observation and thought if we were actually serious about finding the truth then why wouldn't we setup an IR camera with free computer tracking software. The software simply looks for changes in the pixels of the IR camera and if there is movement within the field of view then it starts recording and tracks the motion with a tilt/pan servo controller. It would also be fairly easy to use the servo position data to plot the course of any objects relative to our position. I mean it seems reasonable and if there were craft of any sort within range then we would have tangible proof.  

The camera's could also be networked over the internet and a hit on one camera could be uploaded so the next camera knew where the object was coming from and a general sense of where it may be going. It seems pretty straight forward and may be a good candidate for crowdfunding... hell I would buy into it if the price could be kept to a reasonable level near $100.

AC

[TinMan]

@Aking.21

A while back I was thinking about my UFO observation and thought if we were actually serious about finding the truth then why wouldn't we setup an IR camera with free computer tracking software. The software simply looks for changes in the pixels of the IR camera and if there is movement within the field of view then it starts recording and tracks the motion with a tilt/pan servo controller. It would also be fairly easy to use the servo position data to plot the course of any objects relative to our position. I mean it seems reasonable and if there were craft of any sort within range then we would have tangible proof.  

The camera's could also be networked over the internet and a hit on one camera could be uploaded so the next camera knew where the object was coming from and a general sense of where it may be going. It seems pretty straight forward and may be a good candidate for crowdfunding... hell I would buy into it if the price could be kept to a reasonable level near $100.

AC

Cool
We will be able to watch all the warm blooded animals that fly in black and white.

[evolvingape]

Sounds to much like good old scientist and physicist don't want some other fellow coming up with something they don't know about-situation normal.

Please read the paragraphs I highlighted in bold, again.

As far as it taking just as much(if not more)power to produce antimatter than what you would get back from it is just rubbish. It doesn't have to be produced,it only needs to be separated. Lets look at crude oil and gasoline. The gasoline which has the higher energy per unit volume also has to be separated from the crude oil,and it doesn't take as much energy to separate it than what you get back.

Please try and refute yourself before posting rubbish, here is an example of the kind of search you could have done:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/how-much-energy-does-take-produce-gallon-gasoline-13545.html

The beauty of gasoline is that it is a highly energy dense fuel with a small volume that is very stable under it's standard operating conditions. You can fill (pump) your tank with say 60 litres of gasoline in under 3 minutes! How long would it take to get the equivalent amount of electrical energy into an EV battery bank ?

It's always the same shit with this stuff and physicist,-->if we don't know about it,it is wrong-bla bla bla.
No wonder we are getting no where. Once again,a case of those having no clue as to what gravity is(the gravitational force) saying some one else doesn't know what there talking about

That is not what Dr Morgan said at all. (assuming he is a real Dr and critic of Lazar, I have not checked)

[Aking.21]

Interviewer to Dr Edward Teller: If I ask the question,"  Do you know Bob Lazar"
Teller:" I will sit quietly and not answer"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDfN-VY67xM

Tells you everything you need to know.

For those who don't know Teller

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/tel0bio-1

I stand by all my posts.

[Aking.21]

element 115 has finally been found/created

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24119-fresh-evidence-emerges-for-superheavy-element-115.html#.VWJCQJDi4hs

[evolvingape]

Tells you everything you need to know.

Correction, it tells you everything you need to know.

[Aking.21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JR2zQRqiro

David Wilcock lecture audio only but bang up to date.
Beyond crazy.
Free energy, ufos NWO the lot.

[TinselKoala]

He does go on, doesn't he.

I listened to the whole thing, even the mind-control guided meditation at the end. Now I feel really strange. I expect to meet an eight-foot tall blue-purple feathered alien at any  moment. With love of course.   

[TinMan]

He does go on, doesn't he.

I listened to the whole thing, even the mind-control guided meditation at the end. Now I feel really strange. I expect to meet an eight-foot tall blue-purple feathered alien at any  moment. With love of course.    

Hey-dont knock the mind controll TK.
I can produce sounds that will give you a headache,and sounds that will make you feel calm and relaxed-hell i can even make sounds that will send shivers down your back(fingernails down the blackboard). Im still working on trying to get some clown to rob a bank for me--that one seems a little harder to find the right pitch.

[Aking.21]

The trouble is I can "verify" a lot of what Wilcock says.
e. g. I spent a couple of days watching the live feed from the International space station and guess what?
It's  1 TIME DELAYED!
     2  A blue screen is put up almost once per orbit.

So the only chance we have of seeing the truth is if the censor makes a mistake.
So much for freedom.
The whole thing stinks.

[PhysicsProf]

  At the latest Idaho conference, it seems Be dini is claiming a self-running device -- ho ho, ho hum, or hum-drum?

Here are a few updates relating to the conference and the much anticipated release of the first presentation. Also, John Be dini showed a self-running motor, which started with a 20+ year old corroded D cell battery and after an hour, the motor was running at full speed. It turned a rotor with a propeller showing mechanical work while blinking LED's and keeping the input battery charged up. We'll post pictures of this machine very soon but there is a topic below that is related to this machine. And also a new Bedini solar charge technology... and of course, our first presentation release from the conference!
 

ENERGY CONFERENCE PHOTO ALBUMS

Here are 9 photo albums from the 2015 Energy Science & Technology Conference. http://energyscienceconference.com/photo-gallery/2015-photo-gallery/

This is most of the first day except for photos of John Be dini's presentation where he shows his self running window motor, which is really 3 machines in 1 - will post those soon as well as the photos from the 2nd and 3rd day.



AUGUST 3 (3 more days!) - PAUL BABCOCK - MAGNETIC ENERGY SECRETS PART 3

If you don't have parts 1 & 2, wait for this release because you'll be able to get all 3 at a huge discount.

To get a feel for what Paul shares in this presentation, watch this YouTube video: http://emediapress.com/2015/06/25/advanced-magnetics-beats-lenzs-law/

[Slider2732]

Very interesting Steve and will definitely cause a stir.
People are going to shred this one for years...or...it works !

I just read the newsletter thing in my email and noted the following:

SELF RUNNING WINDOW MOTOR DISCUSSION

In 2007, there were claims by someone to have a window motor that ran on a capacitor that stayed charged up. It was done by modifying the basic window motor circuit that has been on John ######'s website for many years. It is different from the self-running 3 in 1 motor that John shared at the conference this year but is related. Many of these old posts have been copied over to Energy Science Forum and some explanations as to what is happening may be posted soon. You can check out this thread - stay tuned: http://www.energyscienceforum.com/showthread.php?t=388

A few years ago, there was a video on Google Videos, before they owned YouTube, where John Berdini was running a motor. That motor had a solid state relay, I think, and it was on test to see if the mods that a guy had come up with really did work to make it a self runner.
He said something similar to 'well it seems to work as described'. Have always remembered that video and wouldn't mind knowing if other folks remember it ?
To know what that was all about and whether it's related to this motor shown recently.


Edit - yes it is !
Page 6 of the linked forum above, where Aaron goes into the discussions from back in 2007.
It is the same motor seen in that old video.

[TinselKoala]

  At the latest Idaho conference, it seems Be dini is claiming a self-running device -- ho ho, ho hum, or hum-drum?

A self-running motor that needs to be connected to a battery in order to run...... ? How about haw haw haw......

[TinMan]

Very interesting Steve and will definitely cause a stir.
People are going to shred this one for years...or...it works !

I just read the newsletter thing in my email and noted the following:
A few years ago, there was a video on Google Videos, before they owned YouTube, where John Berdini was running a motor. That motor had a solid state relay, I think, and it was on test to see if the mods that a guy had come up with really did work to make it a self runner.
He said something similar to 'well it seems to work as described'. Have always remembered that video and wouldn't mind knowing if other folks remember it ?
To know what that was all about and whether it's related to this motor shown recently.


Edit - yes it is !
Page 6 of the linked forum above, where Aaron goes into the discussions from back in 2007.
It is the same motor seen in that old video.

It is quite easy to show a pulse motor running off of and charging that same dead battery.
It dose take a well balanced pulse motor though.

[Peterae]

Guys we are not allowed to talk about John bedini, especially anything negative about him or his devices. 

[Aking.21]

Tinman:  2 hours 18 minutes in and onwards...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TUsaQw9xY

explains everything.

[TinMan]

Tinman:  2 hours 18 minutes in and onwards...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TUsaQw9xY

explains everything.

Downloading now.
Cheers Aking.21

[lost_bro]

Good day All

Just wanted to post an *interesting* simulation I've been playing with on LTspice:

I will say I have spent severals hours now, and I can change the  Rser & Cpar and continually get *interesting* results.
Guess I will have to build this one...........

Anyone care to tell me where my mistake is?

take care, peace
lost_bro

p.s.  wanted to add that the current source is set to 0.1microampere.

[thx1138]

I just can't see how it could be possible for the rate of time to change in one place and not everywhere at once. That can't work as I see it.

I can see how a clock would work differently in orbit to how it works on Earth though. And that some formula is needed to correct the clocks for GPS.

Time has no inherent rate. Time is a measure of change. Rates of change can vary depending on what change is being measured. A "day" on Mars is longer than a "day" on Earth. Time is always tied to something changing and the rate of the change can vary. Since time is a measure of some change of some thing the measure can change with the relative rates of change between the object that is the basis of the change being measured and the instrument doing that measurement.

On the other hand, there is this theory:http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time

The Universe is eternal in some form or other.

Ask a big bang theorist exactly where the stuff that went bang came from.

1) Nothing cannot go bang.. period.

2) Something cannot be created from nothing.

3) Therefore everything that "is" has always "been" in existence (in some form or other).

4) So there is no beginning and no end to everything that makes up the Universe.

5) And considering that, I say that time is a man made concept and time did not exist as such until man invented it.

6) Because of the orderly movements of the Cosmos we are able to exist as living humans.

7)  If the Universe reverts to Chaos then we become simply matter and time becomes non existent again.  

No humans or other highly intelligent beings that keep track of time means no time.

That's why the Big Bang Theory is still called a theory.
That the universe has always existed and will always exist has always been my belief and I believe it is infinite. Some theoretical physicists are starting to think along the same lines:
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#ajTabs

Regardless of whether humans or other sentient beings exist or not, change will still occur in the universe. IMO, the only time that time will cease to exist is when there is no longer any change anywhere.

But the burning question is, If I am standing in the woods talking and my wife isn't around to hear me, am I still wrong?

[lost_bro]

But the burning question is, If I am standing in the woods talking and my wife isn't around to hear me, am I still wrong?

Hmm.....

Doesn't that depend upon the speed at which she is moving *towards* or *away* from you at the time of the actual talking.

take care, peace
lost_bro

[poynt99]

Tinman:  2 hours 18 minutes in and onwards...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-TUsaQw9xY

explains everything.

Interesting. What are your thoughts Brad?