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.

 

Time travel problem

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   
I'm trying to write this novel, where time travel is a big issue. I keep bumping into one problem: How to (somehow credibly) send a team of sientists back in time? I mean like way back in time?

I once read that one cannot travel back in time beyond the point of inventing the time machine. That sounds reasonable. I mean, if the time machine was invented today 19/1/2006, then in one could not travel back in time past it's invention day.

Anyhow, if you have any ideas how to get past this problem I'd appreciate that very much.




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Use the Stargate, or some newly discovered ancient technology



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
ive always felt that the problem is not when the time machine was invented, but where the time machine was placed for travelling through time.
from the tiime i saw some old movie (possibly called the time machine) where some guy made a time machine i felt that it would have to be put somewhere hiden away, because in this particular movie the time machine was out in the open and the guy saw all that was happening around him and i felt if he could see people doing things then they should be able to see him. anyway thats my opinion.

so i would either say put it in a cavern hidden in the mountains or something along those lines.
or
have it as a machine created by a scientist/engineer a couple of hundred years ago that was only recently discovered. this way you can travel back those years while the machine actuallly exsisted.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Think Back to the Future my friend, that's about all you need to do. Fancy words and mumbo-jumbo will get you there.

However, if you want a little more in-depth...

Look up John Titor's time machine. Most of what goes on there makes at least a little sense. There you're looking at micro-singularities (mini-black holes) that warp space and time in such a way that time progresses backwards, although the space inbetween the two black holes remains the same. In this fashion, the time machine won't be "unbuilt" (the concept of which is rather silly, imho).

However, an important thing to remember about Titor's time machine was that you go back on converging "world-lines". Basically, while the past will be YOUR PAST, once in the past, the future will begin to unravel differently. This is because your being in the past changes the past, and different "quantum universes" will begin to form that allow for your existance in the past.

So, while the past may be your past, the longer you stay there, the more different things become (though likely mostly in obscure and insubstantial ways - but could become more important if you were around at a time of significance... like let's say JFK wasn't shot...). For this part, you could imagine that when you go forwards in time again, you would be "sliding" like in Sliders.

Finally, you could just go and say "Spin really fast so that you go faster than light, and look! You're in the past!", and then try to make your way around all the physical impossibilities.

Remember, it's a story, not a science article.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Marianne Williamson wrote "God exists in eternity, the only point where time and eternity meet is the present, therefore the present is the only time there is."
That is not exactly my belief, but I had to change my time concept to account for things in my life that I could not reconcile with linear time.
So, here is my current definition. Time as a line is an abstract creation, and while it helps us in practical terms, it may not be the reality of the nature of time. I feel that the past, and the future do not exist as we picture them in the taught model. Instead, I see time as a moment, and all of time exists only in the moment, so the past, future, and present do not happen at another time, not up ahead or way back when, because now is all there is. Instantaneous, simultaneous, present tense time, containing all of time within it. I won't be upset if this is not logical to you, I only came up with it out of necessity, and linear time is much easier to imagine.
Still, prophecies and deja vu are, in my mind, real phenomena which linear time does not accomodate. Not for me anyway. So, if some variation on that theme helps your book, I will be happy. If not, no worries.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
"I see time as a moment, and all of time exists only in the moment, so the past, future, and present do not happen at another time, not up ahead or way back when, because now is all there is. Instantaneous, simultaneous, present tense time, containing all of time within it."


It may just be me, but that has to be the most compelling theory on time i have seen. It seems so simple yet complicated at the same time. Your definition is probably the only one i have happened upon here that is even somewhat believable. Thank you




jason



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
it is very nice to hear that you also see it like that. It is not a commonly held concept. I did not really come up with it out of anything more than a need to find a time definition I felt could allow some things to happen that happened, and linear time didn't cut it anymore. After I thought of this possibility I saw that there are other people who feel the same. It is not something I would have chosen to pursue were it not for my loss of faith in the existing one. Once that was definite, I was compelled to find an alternative I could accept. It was really bugging me. It is just a theory, though, and I have no idea whether or not someday I will find a better one. This one will do for now though.
BTW, that was pretty high praise. I am very happy that it is something you hadn't heard, and found agreeable, I love it when that happens.
I do suspect that there is much more to learn about the nature of time.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I think Black Guard has hit on something all right! What's needed here is some brand-spanking-new Time concepts! The fun part of course, is you don't have to prove anything...just make it believable, and above all, entertaining.

Make 'em laugh...make 'em cry...but never make 'em yawn!



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
I think Black Guard has hit on something all right! What's needed here is some brand-spanking-new Time concepts! Make 'em laugh...make 'em cry...but never make 'em yawn!

You sound slightly cheeky. Dost thou mockest me? I am suspicious that this is the case. I did not rack by brains for hours on end because I was hoping you might be entertained. If you got a chuckle, I guess thats a unexpected bonus.
But...you are right when you said 'needed'. I needed to do it. For me. If it isn't comprehensible to you, that is perfectly okay, it was never my goal.
But after I thought of it, I have seen that the concept is an old one.
Alice in Wonderland even has a variation on the theme. And that is stretching the brandspanking new label.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I would call your theory, Black Guard, existance and the universe - not time. To put it in the eloquent words of Colonel Sanders (Space Balls) "Everything that is happening now is happening NOW!" "What happened to then?" "We're past then." "When?" "Just now. We're at now, now." "Go back to then!" "When?" "Now!" "Now?" "Now!" "We can't!" "Why not?" "We missed it!" "When?" "JUST NOW!"

Despite it's comic nature, it's essentially what you're saying. Everything that's happening now, is happening now. Nothing else is happening right now besides what is happening now. Everything that will happen will happen then, and everything that has happened is already past us.

But time... ah, time is much stranger still. Time is the flow of now. We are forever trapped in the now, but the future is to be created, and the past is come and gone. Time will exist to account for the happenings of now and then - to account for changes in position in all 3 dimensions.

And that is why time is the 4th dimension. Just as a point will move 3-dimensionally no where on your graphing calculator's grid, does not mean that it is moving no where 2 dimensionally. The 4th dimension, time, is something that can account for our changes in position, and we slowly progress along its direction - from and to infinite.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
'but the future is to be created' yarium
That was the exact point that I could not reconcile, and why I set out to find a definition of time that would be compatible with my life.
Lots of people claim that they saw the future. If one of them did, hypothetically, doesn't that seem hard to imagine if it is yet to be created?
How would you resolve that apparent contradiction? Maybe it is my lack of creative thinking, but I can't see how something that has yet to be created could possibly be seen.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Well, if you want to know my theory, I will first share with you that I have shared your exact plight. I too sometimes have a dream, and then it will come true - with almost a precise 6 month time period inbetween the dream and the occurance. Even stranger, in my dreams I would start saying that I was having deja vu. It got so bad at one point, that I used to have it several times per week and actually wished it to go away. Unfortunately, it mostly has - but every now and then I come across a situation and remember it from my dream.

Now, the craziest part is that I got so used to it, that I would then CHANGE what would happen from in my dream to better suit me. So if in my dream the discussion leads to an arguement, I'll change what I say/do to avoid that arguement.

This brought me to question a big question: DOES FATE EXIST?

On the one hand, I had to say yes, because I was having these dreams which then came true, so fate had to exist in order for me to forsee it.

But on the other hand, I was forced to say NO, because I was able to change what happened in my dream, and what happened in real life.


Finally, after reading some theories on John Titor, I have come up with a possible answer.

When I see the future in one of my dreams, I am not actually seeing MY future - but instead am witnissing a "likely" future that "me" in another universe is experiencing. That future is simply likely to happen, and when it does, I will still be in control of my future, and will have the option to continue on as my other me did, or to change things.

If you want me to discuss more of the physical properties of this existance, and some of the ramifacations it would have if true, then ask away, and I will be happy to answer.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
It might explain one dream I had that came true at least 8 years later, not exactly as dreamed, but the important, and very unusual aspects of the dream, that had puzzled me the whole 8 years, were the same, and it solved the puzzle. that is the longest time between dream and event for me. It is not very consistent for me, timewise, some are the very next day, some a week of two later, and some months later. But the thing that was consistent, excepting the 8 year earlier one, is that they were like snapshots, detailed and bang on. I never got the deja vu feeling though. I have always known instantly where I saw it before, and since sometimes the scene has not completely played out when I recognize it, maybe I'll see if next time, I can alter things a bit. Never thought of that, I just carried on and was amazed enough to just watch things play out as I had seen they would. It made me laugh out loud one time.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Use John Titor's model. It was good enough for folks to actually count down to 2006 to prove he was wrong.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
LOL BlackGuard! Was I cheeky? Of course! Was I laughing at you? Naahh..on the contrary, I totally agree with you! (I can still do that and agree with you, right?)

BUT...we have to keep in mind this is for a Sci-Fi story, right? To which audience is he writing? Hey, new concepts are a GOOD thing, but you have to keep it believable and simple.

Actually, new concepts mean you can forgo a lot of the techno-crap which the science geeks will almost certainly pick apart!



When I see the future in one of my dreams, I am not actually seeing MY future - but instead am witnissing a "likely" future that "me" in another universe is experiencing. That future is simply likely to happen, and when it does, I will still be in control of my future, and will have the option to continue on as my other me did, or to change things.


So THAT'S why my Lotto "dream numbers" never come up!!


[edit on 20-1-2006 by Toelint]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   
A friend of mine calls the demographic techno-weenies.
There is a great SNL bit from when William Shatner was hosting. He is the VIP at a StarTrek convention, should I?....damn, okay, I went to one once....lol, honestly, a friend had a second ticket and didn't want to go alone. It was alot like the skit. In Capt. Kirks speech to the faithful he suddenly changes course, and says things like, "How old are you, 40? I bet you've never even kissed a girl!" and "get a life you people." The skit is a classic.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
ROTFLMAO I saw that skit...CLASSIC!


apc

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Time can still be accurately described by a linear model. Time dialation proves this.

Anyway... the only way you will be able to bring forth the idea of travel to ancient times in your novel is through fiction. Something like The Time Machine, Back to the Future, or Paging Mr. Titor...

The reality of the concept is as you described... travel to a point prior to the existance of the transport device is likely not possible. The reason being, you need atleast two temporal references... a starting point and an ending. Departure and arrival. This is because most plausible time travel theory revolves around some form of wormhole being used to traverse spacetime. A wormhole likely created "next to" a singularity (black hole). The reason for this is because a singularity does not exist in any specific time, rather it exists in every moment in time since its conception. Therefore, once you jump into your little singularity wormhole, you have to be able to jump back out, just at a different time.

Good luck figuring out how to set your character's destination time. A flux capacitor would probably suffice.

If you do decide to go with pure fiction and devise a way to travel prior to the existance of the machine, be sure to throw in something to give it a 3 dimensional target reference. Otherwise, the machine will arrive floating in space very, very far away.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I am not knowledgeable enough about how time dialation proves linear time to comment on that point. But, the linear time model and the ability some people have to see future events is something I haven't been able to reconcile. If people can see into the future, what would you propose as a theory of how that is possible? If you don't have an answer, that is fine.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   
You could have someone go back further than the invention... It is a time machine and it can take you to any time.. the problem with that is.. you wouldnt want to unless you had materials and knowledge of how to make another time machine to get you back. The time machine doesnt move through time w/ you right? So.. unless it literally went back in time w/ you, or you had materials and knowledge to build the time machine... you would be # our of luck in the time period before the machine.



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join