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 Possible ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Acording to einstein the faster you go the slower time goes.Theres a up side and a down side. The up side is if in the not to far future we can biuld a space ship with a fussion genortor, and the radiation sheild that NASA is biulding put a ion or plasma eingine on it and launch it in to far space using huge solar panels that converts energy from the sun into electricity. This is used to pump a high energy laser beam at a cone shape space craft to produce massive massive steam power. If the ship could reach close to the speed of light and then return to earth on its own power, it would appear to the astrounauts of the space craft that thousands or millions of earth had past.The down side is that humans may have gone extict while you were out. But if not imagine what another thousand years of technological development would yeild.A ship like this could be build by 2050 and launched.


[Edited on 8-4-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
i have read many theories expainling the possablity of time travelling, we have to wait and see if it will become reality



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I was watching a show on time travel and the scientists stated that in theory it is possible to go into the future because they took an atomic clock on a plane and 0.00001 second they went into the future. But they said it looks absolutely impossible to go into the past. But they also stated there are things we have yet to discover that could be used in a time machine. But as that John Titor said they have already started researching time travel at CERT.

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Mikomi]



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
John Titrit? or John Titor lol..

Anyways, why would millions of years pass if you gone just into space? You are saying that they go the speed of light, feed off stars, then return, and millions of years have passed to the people of Earth, but not to them? How is that possible?

-wD



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   


How is that possible?


Its called the theroy of relaitivity. as you approch the speed of light times slows, for you, if you could reach it time would stop, for you, and if you could go faster than light time would reverse, again for you.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mikomi
I was watching a show on time travel and the scientists stated that in theory it is possible to go into the future because they took an atomic clock on a plane and 0.00001 second they went into the future. But they said it looks absolutely impossible to go into the past. But they also stated there are things we have yet to discover that could be used in a time machine. But as that John Titrit said they have already started researching time travel at CERT.


I saw something similiar with voice. Scientists slowed down light for a moment and let it flow later. Was kinda complex but in the end they had send some voices a bit into future.
Of course not like 10sec but it's the proofed theory that counts



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Ah, thank you Amuk. I know of the Theory of Relativity (I'm an idiot) Thanks for clearing that up


-wD



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Your welcome



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   
time travel is impossible. but seeing into the past is possible. we do it everytime we look at the stars, and to a lesser degree, we do it when we look at anything. light travels at a finite speed, so when you are looking, for example, at a star that is 1 light year(which is, of course, the distance that light travels in one years time) away, what you are actually seeing is what that star looked like exactly 1 year prior. looking into the past of earth would be a bit more tricky, as this would require that einstein be wrong in his ascertion that nothing can travel faster than light. so assuming that you could travel faster than light, all you would need to do is take off away from the earth , exceed light speed, and outrun the light traveling away from earth. so if, for yet another example, you were able to reach exactly twice the speed of light instantaneously, and maintain that exact speed for the distance of two light years, then if you looked back at earth with a powerful enough telescope, you would be looking at what was happening at what was happening on earth exactly one year prior to your takeoff.



posted on Jan, 3 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
If you could go faster than light not only could you see what was going on in the past but if you came back to earth you would BE in the past. If you could go faster than light according to Enstein you would travel back in time.

BUT....

according to old Albert you cannot go faster than light because you gain infinite mass before you get there.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
John Titrit? or John Titor lol..




Thats what I put
Don't know where you got John Titrit from


[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Mikomi]



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
If you could go faster than light not only could you see what was going on in the past but if you came back to earth you would BE in the past. If you could go faster than light according to Enstein you would travel back in time.


not exactly. if you exceed the speed of light, your not travelling back in time, your merely outrunning the light. light is constantly travelling in all directions, unless disturbed by an outside force. so the light travelling from the earth one year ago is exactly one light year away from earth. by this theory, you are just catching up with that light so you can see whats happening, but you cant go there because it's not a physical place.



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   
their have been experiments done that make it look like photons (particle of light) do indeed have mass, therefore, how could lightspeed requiire infinite mass? for lightspeed to require infinite mass means light has to have no mass at all, because you can't have infinite mass, but if light has mass, even the most miniscule amount, the entire theory of relativity is thrown out the window, meaning FTL speed would be possible



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I really wanna see some proof for photons having weight, cause I'm relatively sure that was a joke or an unreliable technicality.

You can't forget about the possibility of Tachyons, which are faster-than-light particles which are constantly moving backwards through time. The idea is that as speed increases to light, energy peaks up to an infinity, but if you were to hit and surpass light, then the faster you go the easier, because the amount of energy required would also increase as you slow down towards light, and decrease as you speed up farther past it, so Tachyons constantly move backwards in time, since they are created faster than light, they can never go slower.

The problem is, any Tachyon that ever existed would just fall back through time to the beginning, there is actually a bit of a theory going that it is all of these tachyons coming together at the singularity of the begining of the universe that set off the big bang, but it is a paradox, they created us, and we created them.

Yin and Yang, people. Yin and Yang.



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   


if you exceed the speed of light, your not travelling back in time, your merely outrunning the light.


Not according to the theory of relitivity and some experiments have backed this up, like the atomic clocks on the airplane TIME slowed down not just light. So it has been proved that time slows as you move faster but going faster than light to go back in time is JUST a theory because as I said according to the theory you cannot go faster than light although I belive that there have been experiments that MAY prove otherwise.

Stephan hawkins has an exellent book on the subject I forget the title but if you google his name you should get it



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
What if Einstein was wrong? It would be a bit disappointing to spend billions on this project based on an unproven thoery in an attempt to travel into the future, only to come back and find out that half an hour has gone by on earth...

Has the theory of relativity really been extensively tested?



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
The problem is, any Tachyon that ever existed would just fall back through time to the beginning, there is actually a bit of a theory going that it is all of these tachyons coming together at the singularity of the begining of the universe that set off the big bang, but it is a paradox, they created us, and we created them.


this is a very interesting theory. do you happen to know where i can find a more in depth description?



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
What if Einstein was wrong? It would be a bit disappointing to spend billions on this project based on an unproven thoery in an attempt to travel into the future, only to come back and find out that half an hour has gone by on earth...

Has the theory of relativity really been extensively tested?


Yes, very much so. It is a little off, and doesn't explaine EVERYTHING out there, but it does have a few basic rules that have been tested.

1) Higher velocity = Slower time has been proven time and time again. This is the basis of this discusion so i listed it first, yes, people have time traveled forward using this principal, it just wasn't very far forward becuase we lack the technology to go all that fast for all that long.

2) Gravity's Deformation of Space. Gravity doesn't really attract. Rather, it bends space so that we "fall" downward. For example, the earth moves in a strait line through circular space. This also has been tested and proven.

3) The speed of light is that same of any observer. Tested and proved, but very odd.

4) They are testing frame draggin soon, the satalite for the experiment should go up in the next year or two.

Also, Tachyons have no basis in science, they are just a speculative partical that probably doesn't exist.



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   
i think time travel is not possible!

i'm pretty sure some day people will achieve the speed of light but the theory will be proven wrong, or we'd have time travelers already

even if the time travel will be invented, only the government will use it and no one else and probably it will be banned, cause image if every government had the ability to travel back in time and change stuff? it would be a chaos!

if time travel would be possible why wouldn't future people prevent world trade center attacks? or wars?



posted on Jan, 4 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberGhost
if time travel would be possible why wouldn't future people prevent world trade center attacks? or wars?

this might be because they are looking at a bigger picture. maybe the wtc attacks prevented another, possibly larger and more devastating tragedy.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join