Re: Time Questions

Gavin Dingley ( gavin.dingley@astra.ukf.net )
Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:29:04 +0100

Hi Jerry,
this is the opposite to relativity theory, but that's not to say it's
wrong, only that it would upset an orthodox physicist. In General
Relativity gravity slows down time, so theoretically you would age at a
slower rate on the Earth than on the Moon. If Keely is right, then what
does this say about red-shift, where the gravitational curvature of the
Universe has resulted in light from stars shifting toward the red end of
the spectrum. If Keely is correct, we should be seeing blue-shift. It
hard to know who to go with;

Keely who built some pretty amazing devices that operate on principles
perhaps to advanced for even today's physics, or......

A bunch of astronomers/astrophysicists who impress their own beliefs
upon observations made many light-years away from the surface of this
little old planet.

I guess one way to find if time is slower on the Moon than on Earth is
to ask a radio ham if he has had any unusual results from moon bounce
radio transmissions. Perhaps measure phase differences and compare them
with "established theory."

Gavin

Jerry W. Decker wrote:

> Hi Folks!
>
> I'd like to ask a question about time and see if anyone has
> any thoughts, insights or links to information that might
> relate, either refuting or supporting these UNPROVEN
> contentions.
>
> Keely wrote that 'time is gravity' indicating that the
> greater the gravity, the faster the flow of time, where time
> could be detected by the clocking of matter, from birth to
> maturation to death.
>
> ASSUMING this is true...
>
> We are told that the moon is 1/6 of earth gravity, so if you
> weigh 180 pounds on earth, on the moon you would only weigh
> 30 pounds.
>
> (6 X 30 moon gravity = 180 earth gravity)
>
> You are thus lighter on the moon.
>
> IF gravity is flowing SLOWER on the moon then so is time.
>
> That means an hour on earth would equal 10 minutes on the
> moon.
>
> (10 minutes moon time X 6 = 1 hour earth time)
>
> Is this correct?
>
> That means each planet would have different gravities and
> different time scales relative to each other, possibly using
> the local sun as a master reference for a given solar
> system.
>
> In open space, though they claim you are 'technically in
> free fall'....
>
> The truth of the matter would be that there is no gravity,
> thus no time. Well, ok, very slight gravity, so very slow
> time.
>
> That's why the theory says if you travel in space for a few
> months, when you come back to earth 100 years have passed.
>
> You have only aged for the few months you were gone, while
> everyone you knew is either very old or very dead.
>
> Is this correct?
>
> That means If you could slow time down in a given area, you
> would create the equivalent of a variable 'stasis field' to
> observers from outside this area, possibly even disappearing
> from their perception because light and energy entering this
> zone would also be affected.
>
> Where, depending on the density of this local time field,
> you could create a lagging time zone where you could spend 1
> hour, age 1 hour, perceive just 1 hour,
>
> yet, when you reduce and shutdown the field (notice, not
> instantly shut it off),
>
> you would resume the time stream and speed of the earth
> which would have passed a year or even a hundred years,
> depending on the density of your lagging field and how long
> you stayed in there.
>
> Is this correct?
>
> That means by DECREASE gravity and thus SLOW time, you
> create a stasis field or outright disappearance to outside
> observers.
>
> The opposite of that would be if you INCREASE gravity and
> thus SPEED up time, where you would again disappear to
> outside observers as you are moving too fast for their
> perceptions. YOU THUS AGE FASTER, are subect to MORE WEIGHT
> and EXPERIENCE MORE PERCEPTIONS during that time so that
> when you exit this speeded up zone, you have aged while
> others have simply clocked along at the normal earth rate.
> Much like the Dorian Gray effect. So you would die a little
> faster with respect to everyone else everytime you used
> this.
>
> Would that also follow??
>
> I can't find any flaw in this and part of it is posted at;
>
> http://www.keelynet.com/time/tdilation.htm
>
> Thinking about coupling of resonant bodies, with the
> mysterious conduit or channel that springs up between them,
>
> AND, thinking of it taking 20 minutes to send a signal to
> Mars (with Mars being much larger than earth, therefore with
> higher gravity and FASTER time), then 20 minutes to get a
> signal back,
>
> WHAT IF, you could adjust the local gravity of the radio or
> video transceivers on each planet so that they MATCHED,
>
> one on Mars, the other on earth and resonantly coupled by
> virtue of an identical gravity synchrony? It could be a
> faster than light communication system.
>
> --
> KeelyNet - From an Art to a Science
> Jerry W. Decker - http://www.keelynet.com/
> discussion archives http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, TX 75187 - 214.324.8741
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
> with the body text: leave Interact
> list archives and on line subscription forms are at
> http://keelynet.com/interact/
> -------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------