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.

# Scientists to invent time machine in near future

page: 3
1
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:36 AM
How come a time machine could only go back in time to the time when it was made? What would be stpping it?

That never makes sense to me.

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 08:15 AM

To alter the current reality would mean trans dimensional travel, not time travel. You may start off time traveling.
It is possible to go faster then the speed of light. That rate of travel just doesn't happen naturally outside the electro magnetic spectrum. The amount of power required to exceed the speed of light is not that much in hard vacuum. What it takes is time to reach that rate of travel and beyond.
All this talk about how your mass would increase and you would be crushed and the amount of fuel you would need to reach that speed would exceed earths entire resource is nonsense. All of it is backwards thinking.
Lets scale this down for the average Joe shall we.
A 50 cal. round is made of lead and weighs only so much. Call this M
The force created from the gun powder within the cartridge. Call this E
The rate of travel and the weight of the 50 cal. together. Call this C2
OK.. Now we have a chunk of lead that can go through a 1 in. plate of steel.
Now ask yourself this. Did the round get larger? How can soft lead go through hard steel?
This is what happened.. E times the M gives you C2. Like all true mathematical equations, it works both ways.

E=MC2 is great for calculating within the electro magnetic spectrum.
EM=C2 would be best suited for the material world.

In short, we have an increase in force, not mass.
With this line of thinking, you can travel faster than light.

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 08:43 AM

Originally posted by derfred33

Originally posted by SkipShipman

My favorite is going back, saving JFK, putting all the conspirators in jail, and returning the future or now,

LOL

I was thinking about saving Jesus !

I magine the possibilities

fred

Imagine the possibilities...hummm. Didn't Jesus die for our sins? To give humanity a second chance? So where would we be if you saved Jesus? probably in hell cause you messed with Gods plan. Now I am not a christian but if you start messing with a divine entity's plan don't you think you will make it angry? What would be the ramifications of that? In Jesus death we were taught a lesson. Same with the death of JFK, MLK, Lennon, and the list goes on. Who are we to make these decisions?

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 08:55 AM
If you saw time itself as an organic thing and if the future effects the past as well as the past effecting the future then it's just a thing that is consistently changing anyway, someone is worried that it's not going to change the way they want it to? A jealous god he is...

Okay, so we don't want to change anything that's not going to agree with us. Lets be grown up, lets not time travel until we know the consequences.

posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by hILB3rT

Originally posted by derfred33

Originally posted by SkipShipman

My favorite is going back, saving JFK, putting all the conspirators in jail, and returning the future or now,

LOL

I was thinking about saving Jesus !

I magine the possibilities

fred

Imagine the possibilities...hummm. Didn't Jesus die for our sins? To give humanity a second chance? So where would we be if you saved Jesus? probably in hell cause you messed with Gods plan. Now I am not a christian but if you start messing with a divine entity's plan don't you think you will make it angry? What would be the ramifications of that? In Jesus death we were taught a lesson. Same with the death of JFK, MLK, Lennon, and the list goes on. Who are we to make these decisions?

What you are saying about "saving Jesus," and all the others is that God works with fate and predestination. Theological insistence that Jesus "died for you sins," precludes the possibility that he could "live so that your sins would be forgiven." Did Jesus have to die to redeem us? On the group of humans he had his existence, we are told he chose to die, rather than call upon 10k angels. Jesus himself never said to us, "I am dying on the cross to redeem you from you sins," when he was alive, and when he was resurrected from the dead, but rather those apostles who follow him.

Who is to say what he would have done seeing our time travelers with their alternative future in that realm, "saving Jesus?"

All of these things are hypothetical, but it seems when people state a bad event after the fact and look at it philosophically and religiously as "for the best," they create a danger of dependency upon bad events for good events to follow. This is the key problem in the world today when "redemptive suffering," acts as an unwitting tool of violence.

Who is to say that in a multiverse of parallel times, that Jesus could redeem us no matter what happens in the concurrent time stream?

new topics

top topics

1