It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Summarized - Building a time machine

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I think your right, I think I miss read. I was ask a general question about time travel. I see now, that if you went back, today might not be the same day if you would to come back.




posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
not exactly Burgess some theories with time (yea the pun....w/e) and some temporal elbow grease could possibly tryed and tested, devices bulit and the like....its just by the time we get past-lightspeed travel or reach a black hole etc i will be old or dead.

and yeessss....the sentence should go like that



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
okies spittincobra...

Neway for the sake of argument, i think Skeptic_Overlord may have mentioned something to this effect,
even if we were to uncover how to build the damn thing, it would probably take decades more to make it accurate enough for controlled travel...not just randomly shooting through space and time and popping out the other end at the big bang or wherever.

if i had to think of the top of my head i dont know how we could control the device so it would go to exactly when you want.

you would have to build an additional type of sensor which can tell you where you would be coming out



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
disregard this this was a double post - dont know how that happened i have just changed it to this sentence

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
You would need a type of time compass, I wonder if all "points" of time have a Fingerprint.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Exactly!


now that i think of it.......it could....sigh im really thinking *head explodes*

perhaps it could sense some kind of photon....or gravitron decay or energy decay........probably they dont apply but detecting something...and calculate the time from your point to the point on the other end........some kind of, u kno those speed equals distance over time....

but perhaps rate of decay add distance equals time of destination....or something like that.....

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
um no if you went back to lets say 600BC and tryed returned to the present Skeptic_Overlord was sayin he wasnt sure you would be able to accurately return to the moment after you left.....is that right???



No. Tomorrow does not yet exist. The time for tomorrow has not yet happened. Theorists who discuss time travel with any seriousness still falter on this aspect... the possibility of traveling to the future. Probability theory makes it very difficult, if not impossible.

Travel to the past presents fewer theoretical hurdles because it happened. But once you arrive in the past (assuming that it was possible), you are now at a point in time where the future has not yet happened... giving you the same problem you have when considering traveling to tomorrow.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
ALTERNATIVELY!!! it would probably be easier to send a camera, microphone and speakers into the time vortex and simply ask someone....


although considering the amount of extention cord cuppled with the fact you've just showed shakespeare 21st century technology its prroooobably not the best idea.

im off now but will be on later


[edit on 12-4-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I have yet to see anyone addressing the more difficult issues, here -- including the fact that the time machine will apparently cause the universe to self-destruct. That's not a trivial case, IMHO.
Specifically:

The above analysis was confirmed in further investigations on the obstacles to constructing Gott’s time machine. Carroll, Farhi and Guth15 showed that it cannot be manufactured as a subsystem of a normal time-like matter assembly in an open universe. In a universe
that is spatially closed, owing to a mass distribution with critical magnitude for closing space (Pmm = c2/2G), a pair of cosmons traveling with velocity exceeding vcritical can be produced; nevertheless a time machine cannot be built here either because the universe dramatically self-destructs just before the cosmons get close enough to engender a closed time-like curve — there is not enough time to travel into the past.
arxiv.org...


Although there's a blythe assumption that warping spacetime will produce cloed timelike curves, no one addresses the issue of the Cauchy horizon and finite strings (and the energy requirements, of course)

Quoting from Hawkings' abstract on this:


It has been suggested that an advanced civilization might have the technology to warp spacetime so that closed timelike curves would appear, allowing travel into the past. This paper examines this possibility in the case that the causality violations appear in a finite region of spacetime without curvature singularities. There will be a Cauchy horizon that is compactly generated and that in general contains one or more closed null geodesics which will be incomplete. One can define geometrical quantities that measure the Lorentz boost and area increase on going round these closed null geodesics. If the causality violation developed from a noncompact initial surface, the averaged weak energy condition must be violated on the Cauchy horizon. This shows that one cannot create closed timelike curves with finite lengths of cosmic string. Even if violations of the weak energy condition are allowed by quantum theory, the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor would get very large if timelike curves become almost closed. It seems the back reaction would prevent closed timelike curves from appearing. These results strongly support the chronology protection conjecture: The laws of physics do not allow the appearance of closed timelike curves


This, of course, is Hawkings' foundational Chronology Protection Conjecture and it's more than just a pretty theory. It also relates to the inherent chronology protection in strings within our universe (though not necessarily in the mathematical Godel space-time universe, which is where most of the research on time travel takes place. (for those of you whose eyes are crossing now, it means that mathemeticians and physicists have come up with a universe where this sort of thing CAN Take place... it's just not our universe (nor is it a thing that you can generate in our universe for a number of reasons.)
ej.iop.org...

I think you have to work around those issues first. The "Universe Go BOOM!" one is a fairly large stumbling block, IMHO.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Well yes... Hawkings has some issues with the possibility of time travel.

But these topics seemed to be jumping about as if physics, cosmology, and string theory were Chinese buffets from which we could pick and choose a loaded tray of interesting snippets and concoct a hodgepodge theory of sorts. I was trying to get discussion focused on just the appetizers, and you jumped ahead to the rich deserts!



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
well......in time travel they are all related really......

and yes while hawkings is a brilliant mind some of his later theories are a bit wild.....

ok so ignoring (and thats a big one if it were true) the fact that the universe may implode on itself......


[edit on 12-4-2005 by Shadow88]

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Well yes... Hawkings has some issues with the possibility of time travel.

But these topics seemed to be jumping about as if physics, cosmology, and string theory were Chinese buffets from which we could pick and choose a loaded tray of interesting snippets and concoct a hodgepodge theory of sorts. I was trying to get discussion focused on just the appetizers, and you jumped ahead to the rich deserts!

Well, yes. And it was evil, I admit.

But we have these dip-onna-chip discussions all the time and I figured it was time to muscle up with some real theory and say, "okay... so let's REALLY talk about it."

In hunting up the meatier courses, I did come across some interesting theories about time travel... but the kind of time traveling that we all do --traveling in our minds. According to several articles, our ability to mind-time-travel backwards is one of the key steps in the evolution of the human mind.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


...though there is some debate about this:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Ahh... but back to the Evil Physics. Here's a paper that (in readable English! Woot!) discusses time travel and Godel space and Closed Timelike Curves. And really, if we're going to put down the chips and go on to the soup-and-nuts or main course, these things need to be brought up:
www-personal.usyd.edu.au...



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88

one cannot go back in time relativistically, simply slow the passage of time.


going faster than the speed of light is said to reverse time.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Although neccesary in order to discover, prove or watever new sciences and technologies many people have come up with many different theories, some of which directly oppose each other (and by people i dont mean us i mean scientist people)

It is VERY annoying having one guy work out a theory, that in theory works, about lets say, time curves, and then hawkings comes up with a working theory that says it will destroy the universe etc etc.....

sigh......so many theories, so little time (pun again, not intended)

i really.....really want a time machine...........dubble sigh........



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a now i remember why i posted that. i was halfway through typing it then forgot the point lol

dulcimer mentioned that theory about travelling faster than light,

while one simply states that your perception of time slows down, the other says it will reverse completely.....why is that anyway???

sooooo many theories........(thought bubble....regretting starting eeeeevil EVIL conversation:roll



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I have a question: What proof is there that light speed is a finite velocity? As far as I know, its a huge assumption that doesn't conflict with too many people because we don't work with speeds anything near that.

The theory that you move back it time is based solely on idea that light speed is the fastest that the universe can "comprehend." Velocity is in meters per second. Thus, when you've gone more meters than it can fathom, space will automatically put you back in seconds to compensate.

But I ask what proof is there that 186,000 mls...is the fastest we can go? And don't tell me its because no one has ever achieved it. I understand the principle that inertia would make it really difficult to go to relativistic speeds, but why not set 180,000 as the limit--that's just as hard to get to.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
Although neccesary in order to discover, prove or watever new sciences and technologies many people have come up with many different theories, some of which directly oppose each other (and by people i dont mean us i mean scientist people)

This is actually my purpose in bringing this up -- when people chitchat about it (as they do here), so many of them just don't do their homework. They find *a* web page about it, read it (or read it and whimper at the math or the really obtuse language) and then go talk about it.

So what we end up with here is just a bunch of "this is so cool so it must be true" talk -- and nobody's encouraged to go find out about the hard issues (including the math.)


It is VERY annoying having one guy work out a theory, that in theory works, about lets say, time curves, and then hawkings comes up with a working theory that says it will destroy the universe etc etc.....


And there's my point again. In theory, I can build a time machine by harnessing winged horses to the sun chariot. I can have great fun with it, and in some dimension (given the mathematical proposition that if all dimensions CAN exist, then they WILL exist) it would be possible to harness up those horses to the Chariot of the Sun and go time traveling.

Here, however, it's Really Bad Fiction.

How do you know the first person was right? Or that Hawking's wrong. He certainly MIGHT be... but "well, he's wrong because I think he's wrong and here's this web page about it" just doesn't cut it. Usually what it means is that someone really doesn't understand the situation or the mathematics.

Hawking came up with the Chronology Protection Conjecture in 1991. There's been a lot of theoretical research since then.

In the Real Science end of time machines (go snooping around on www.scholar.google.com... ) there's some intriguing Real World research that people are working on right now. For instance, I see among the papers proposals for micro-time-machines involved in controls that actually involve do-able and workable science in the near future.

There's some research on time-machines and programming (I'm not sure how this works and didn't look it up, but I see the papers there.)

There's a fair number of philosphy, ethics, and psychology papers on time travel, too.

So, what I'm challenging is this: yes, let's talk about it. It's neat and there's really neat stuff out there. But let's take it away from the Nova/Discovery programs (which are Science 101, and not a lot of it) and away from the Unicorns and the Sun Chariots and "Kewl Web Sites" and start talking about the current research that's showing up in the magazines.


(of course, I haven't had my morning cup of coffee and I am probably sounding a bit cranky. Sorry. If someone can warm up their time machines and pre-bring me that coffee...?)



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   
wow really weird guys i was up alllllllll night and i mean all night researching more about time travel so ide have something meaningful (and actually more accurate) to say. did you know there are 95 million 600 thousand website referring to a time machine....yawn indeed.......

anywhoo thats not the point of my post. when i finally fell asleep i had a dream. it was almost like it was playing in ultra fast-forward but anyway my dream. i had the design (different to my initial....conscience ideas) in my head and am drawing real quick so it will ne on my next post. i really need to calm down - or drink red bull alot - something so i can more vividly remember it but here goes. (next post)



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Done!!! yea very weird....the circular arcs spun around the central device (just click the link and look), each of the cylinders produced hazy yellow static. eventually it was spinning so fast i was unable to see through to the centre. then eventually this haze of energy became bubble like, pulsating. in the centre two metal cables with a steel ball attached to each shot together, blue static running along that etc etc you can see from the diagram


[edit on 14-4-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

No. Tomorrow does not yet exist. The time for tomorrow has not yet happened. Theorists who discuss time travel with any seriousness still falter on this aspect... the possibility of traveling to the future. Probability theory makes it very difficult, if not impossible.Travel to the past presents fewer theoretical hurdles because it happened. But once you arrive in the past (assuming that it was possible), you are now at a point in time where the future has not yet happened... giving you the same problem you have when considering traveling to tomorrow.


Forget the physics. In summary, travel to the past presents fewer theoretical hurdles because it happened, placing you in a point in time where the future has not yet happened, yet must have for you to have arrived, in itself suggesting our own future, from this current point in time, has, in some way, already occurred. If we then assume (and I do not think this is a big leap) that the advancement and evolution of technology causes the development of just about ALL possible technologies that allow any significant control over our environment which are of any use to humans, given sufficient time; we must then conclude that if time travel is possible then it will be developed , which means, dare I say it.........THEY'RE HEEEEERE
Now, if they're here, they will be changing their past (and ours) in a reiterative way for their own self advancement, trying to achieve, presumably, some form of utopia downstream (without doing something to lose the technology). Now I ask everyone, is there any evidence for this?



[edit on 14-4-2005 by bookie]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join