It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# My Time Travel Theory

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 07:25 AM
First off, for those who dont know:

Velocity Through Space + Velocity Through Time = Velocity of Light

Therefore, matter with no mass has no velocity through spacetime, and matter with positive mass has a positive velocity through spacetime. So my idea is, if matter with positive mass travels forward through spacetime, then matter with negative mass travels backwards. Thus, negative mass is the key to negative velocity through spacetime.

So my idea is to get a spaceship. Put it in deep space where it will not be affected by gravity, and make it so it does not move at all. Get "bricks" with a negative weight and place them on this ship. These brick should be strapped to something with a mass greater than the brick's absolute value, so they can be trasported without going backwards through time. This will give it a positive mass. Place enough of the bricks on the spaceship so that when the positive weights are removed, the mass of the ship is negated. Now all the ship has to do is simply move and it will go back in time.

All we need is deep space craft and negative mass matter.

posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 08:53 AM
Assuming the negative mass is actually discovered... what would you mean by "strapped" to? I would imagine that it would be the negative mass bricks that would be travelling back in time, leaving the spaceship where it was, there's no real way of attaching the negative mass bricks permanently to the ship. Chemically bond them perhaps, but the methos od this boggle my mind... seeing as the energy required to bond them would reduce the mass, but... we already have negative mass. An interesting concept, would negative mass atoms increase in mass when bonded to another?

Also, how would one get to place these negative mass bricks on said ship without moving them and thus them dissapearing back in time?

Oh, and a final point... define "not moving", unfortunately, constant motion is relative. There is no such thing as a "stationary" object in space, only stationary with respect to another object, such as the earth for instance. Coul dyou say you are stationary right now? With respect to the earth you might not be moving. But then again, the earth is orbiting around the sun. There are some complications here due to the rotational motion inducing accelerations, but essentially, there is no such thing as stationary unless we manage to discover some sort of "Ether" that permeates space allowing a fixed reference frame (I'm not one for explaining things very well I'm afraid!)

Quite a mirandering essay I'm afraid, lol. Been doing a 9000 word lab report and my brains fizzled. Really muse start perusing this board when more awake!

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:49 PM
mass is one of those "rules" in physics that no one ever thinks of breaking
in school you learn that mass is positive and that's it.

Interestingly enough, we also learn in school that gravity is constant, and our trusted government has learned recently that this is not the case. While testing ICBMs that fly over the north pole, they encountered navigation errors, because gravity actually increases at the poles. So mass could technically be like gravity, its nature is not completely set in stone, although many believe that it is.

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:55 PM
Time Travel is a very complicated topic. There are many websites with these types of theories but it is really hard to understand. I don't even know if mass is matter.

If it is, then I would certainly like to discuss with anti-matter...

My theory is that when you travel back, we open up a new universe, same things but YOU ARE THE VARIABLE. How's that for a theory?

posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 11:54 PM
Benign, could you please link in some evidence concerning the military's icbm problems over the poles.
I have a feeling that perhaps you've gotten more 'gravity' around the poles confused with less centrifugal force.
As you probably know, it is easier to fire rockets into orbit closer to the equator than it is near the poles. This however, is NOT related to more or less gravity, its simply related to the fact that near the equator objects have more angular momentum (Thanks to the earth spinning, of course). This also explains why the equator 'bulges' slightly, resulting in a an earth that isn't that spherical.
You can think of it in a similar way to olympic hammer throwing, by spinning as fast as possible, the athlete can throw the hammer much further than if they didn't.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:14 AM
i dont see this being feasable.

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 12:16 PM

Originally posted by benign
So mass could technically be like gravity, its nature is not completely set in stone, although many believe that it is.

It was my understanding that mass correlates with gravity, as it can be hard to weigh an object at rest in the vacuum of space (very big lack of gravity) but rather easy here on earth (mucho grande gravity). So to speak of the statement 'breaking the rule of mass', would be nothing more than breaking the rule of gravity, right? Scientist have been very good at this nature as scientist knew hundreds of years before the first manned space flight the lack of gravitational forces in space and many of its inertial qualities.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 02:04 PM
my theory, (i am not an expert) is that time travel is completely impossible, due to the simple reason: Time is not a physical/ existing object.
Man invented time as a measure, so in my opinion it is therefore impossible to travel through a non-existant object.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 02:34 PM

Originally posted by danboy785
my theory, (i am not an expert) is that time travel is completely impossible, due to the simple reason: Time is not a physical/ existing object.
Man invented time as a measure, so in my opinion it is therefore impossible to travel through a non-existant object.

Hm as far as i remember time is an abolute necessary thing. It has a starting point and everything develops since then...if there would be no time everything would freeze...

Mankind didn´t invented time...24 hours for example is no time definition...it´s one spin of the earth.

Nobody knows what time is. Our 24 hour system could actually be one second in 'universe-real-time'. Imagine you are in a train driving with 30 mph and besides you is another train with also 30 mph. Now imagine there is no sound, no vibration..you only see your train and the other train: How do you know you are moving or standing still.
You can´t because you have no other point you can relate to. We could actually exist in an atom of a stone which is cracked by a hammer and we dissapear...all that in a second but for us it could be long as eternity. thats the micro-macro cosmos theory if im not wrong...

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 04:20 PM
I don't really see how having a negative mass would necessarily move you backwards. But if you could create enough negative mass to counter the positive mass of a Space Shuttle. Then it would be not just more efficient but maybe infinitely fast since it contains no mass.

[edit on 23-4-2005 by TheJeSta]

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 04:37 PM
Negative mass.. interesting idea.

If you could somehow measure your movement against the fabric of spacetime and halt all motion, you would have to do it somewhere far between galaxy clusters, otherwise you would start incredably minute motion the instant you shut down your engines (unless that would just be the on switch for 'shift-mode'). It may not be as intense as it is near a planet, but a galaxy's gravity is still very strong well beyond its edges.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 05:12 PM
Negative mass doesn't make sense.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by T_Jesus
Negative mass doesn't make sense.

Negative mass is nothing else than antimatter or dark-matter in space.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 09:10 PM
I don't think you understand what antimatter/dark matter is. Antimatter doesn't necessarily mean "opposite," antimatter behaves the same way as typical matter.

Dark matter is the abundance of matter we can't account for, whether they be neutrinos or some other form of exotic matter.

The mass/energy of an electron is 0.511 MeV, a positron is not -0.511 MeV - it's 0.511 MeV.

So I stand by my original statement.

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 09:35 PM
Without doing a formal investigation, thats the impression I was always under when it came to dark/antimatter. The negitive matter just sounded like a cool idea. Although I was thinking if it did exist, it really wouldn't.

posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 01:20 PM

Originally posted by TheJeSta
Then it would be not just more efficient but maybe infinitely fast since it contains no mass.

[edit on 23-4-2005 by TheJeSta]

It wouldn't be infinitely fast, it would go the speed of light... photons are also massless (ish... pushing the bounderies of current physics here).

Still, the mass and negative mass would still have mass and giving them an impulse would still require energy... just the overal mass of the object would appear to be zero (I still say I think this wouldn't work in anycase, but hypothetically...)

The only way to remove this mass would be somehow remove the force that interacts with Higgs-Boson particles, then the object would be truley massless.

How lucky you are my theoretical particle physics lectures have just finished, lol.... Higg-boson

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 08:46 AM
Sigh...the Higgs Boson...

One reason why I hate particle physics.

posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 02:54 PM
Oh the higgs. Don't hate it, love it.

There's no such thing as negative mass. You can remove mass, but you can't have negative mass.

new topics

top topics

0