"Time Travel: An Approximate Mathematical Solution"

R

RL1

Temporal Novice
"Time Travel: An Approximate Mathematical Solution"

Smashwords – Time Travel: An Approximate Mathematical Solution —a book by Richard Lighthouse

This is the title of my recent short ebook, which can be found at smashwords dot com. It is free.
If you have a background in calculus, physics, or engineering - this may be interesting to some readers. The equations are derived from Einstein (E=mc2) and Maxwell regarding electric flow.

It is accompanied by: Prototype Design for a Time Machine
which can also be found at smashwords for free.

Smashwords – Prototype Design for a Time Machine —a book by Richard Lighthouse

Abstract:
This short technical note describes an approximate mathematical solution for Time Travel involving relativity and very brief time intervals. Limitations of the solution are discussed including possible error sources. Assumptions are made for small changes in the speed of light and for the Lighthouse Frequency, which has been described in previous papers. This paper will only be meaningful to those with a background in calculus, physics, and/or engineering. Each reader must comprehend that our universe blinks off and on, approximately billions of times every second.
 
Richard,

I've read your short manuscripts. Let me put it this way:

You have a MS in Engineering from Stanford University. If you were teaching a post-graduate level engineering or physics course and a student submitted a series of papers of a quality equal to those that you recently self-published (and reference above) what grade would you give that student? Consider the following criteria:
  1. In the bibliography of each paper the author's only sources are references to one or more of the other papers being turned in, i.e. they are self referencing;
  2. The papers require that several assumptions be accepted where the assumptions violate the known laws of physics without justification;
  3. One or more new terms are added to the physics/engineering lexicon that are invented by the author but without justification or explanation;
  4. The author introduces a new term named for himself by himself and describes it as a physical law central to the entire series of papers that must be accepted as correct without justification.
  5. One paper, introduced as a new concept, consists solely of a well known, well accepted basic physics equation. It then takes its first derivative, a partial derivative and offers the solution as the author's original research without expanding on the original.
  6. One paper is titled "A Prototype Design for X" and consists entirely of one graphic with labels and arrows pointing to a tube and several rectangles labeled with letters without any further description of what is inside the rectangles or their specific purpose; there is no description at all of any hardware or hardware design.
In your above post you state, "The equations are derived from Einstein (E=mc2) and Maxwell regarding electric flow." While that is true you should admit that it is also somewhat trivial; it isn't new information. The equation is derived from the equation published by Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" which we now call The Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein's entire paper is based on Maxwell's electrodynamics. We've known that for 108 years if for no other reason than the paper's title tells us as much.
 
Darby said:
Richard,

I've read your short manuscripts. Let me put it this way:

You have a MS in Engineering from Stanford University. If you were teaching a post-graduate level engineering or physics course and a student submitted a series of papers of a quality equal to those that you recently self-published (and reference above) what grade would you give that student? Consider the following criteria:
  1. In the bibliography of each paper the author's only sources are references to one or more of the other papers being turned in, i.e. they are self referencing;
  2. The papers require that several assumptions be accepted where the assumptions violate the known laws of physics without justification;
  3. One or more new terms are added to the physics/engineering lexicon that are invented by the author but without justification or explanation;
  4. The author introduces a new term named for himself by himself and describes it as a physical law central to the entire series of papers that must be accepted as correct without justification.
  5. One paper, introduced as a new concept, consists solely of a well known, well accepted basic physics equation. It then takes its first derivative, a partial derivative and offers the solution as the author's original research without expanding on the original.
  6. One paper is titled "A Prototype Design for X" and consists entirely of one graphic with labels and arrows pointing to a tube and several rectangles labeled with letters without any further description of what is inside the rectangles or their specific purpose; there is no description at all of any hardware or hardware design.
In your above post you state, "The equations are derived from Einstein (E=mc2) and Maxwell regarding electric flow." While that is true you should admit that it is also somewhat trivial; it isn't new information. The equation is derived from the equation published by Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" which we now call The Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein's entire paper is based on Maxwell's electrodynamics. We've known that for 108 years if for no other reason than the paper's title tells us as much.
Click to expand...


Awesome debunking Darby!
 
vodkafan,

Thanks.

One last item and then I'm putting this one to bed.

In the above referenced paper Richard thanks to the " Foundation Opposed to Academic Puffery (FOAP)" for its generous grant in support of his research. Talk about puffery. "Foundation Opposed to Academic Puffery (FOAP)" is the title of yet another self-published eBook by Richard

(Foundation Opposed to Academic Puffery (FOAP) by Richard Lighthouse (eBook) - Lulu)

- just $9.99. Published in February of this year. Other than online self-references to Richard there is nothing else about the "foundation" to be found.

It's nice to thank oneself for ponying up funds. It's puffery, however, to make it appear as if an outside research grant foundation has confidence in the ideas and gave monetary aid in support of the research.
 
Back
Top