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.

 

Physicist Says Time Travel Is Not Only Possible, but Likely

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


Starred


That's of the best and most concise definitions of time that I have ever read. I'd always heard that our view of time as a "ribbon" stretching forward and backward was just an illusion. Now I'm going to just sit and contemplate what you've written for a little while (sideways).




posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Nighthawk



example, what would have been my grandfather died when my mother was 7 years old. It is possible that a separate timeline exists where he did not die and in fact lived an additional 30 or 40 years. This world is independently unique from the world here and now that I know to be true. If I was able to travel a point in time say 10 years after what I know to be his death to observer that world, even if I could physically be manifested into that world any alteration in the events in that world would not change the fact that here on my base timeline that he died when my mother was 7 years old.


Exactly! And concievably you could then travel to the same exact point in "linear time" as we percieve it, within your original reality--and compare the two at your leisure, without affecting the "futures" of either timeline.


However there is one possible factor that "you" as a physically manifested being maybe bound by the reality construct for that time. Meaning if you were born in "1980" and say you are 28 now in the current space of "time" and you go to the event on the current timeline that corresponds to 1985 when you physically manifest at that point you very well maybe just 5 years old. Therefore while "time travel and alt-timeline" travel may be theoretically possible, actually being able to physically manifest "you" and your retained conscience maybe restricted to your overall lifespan, thus limiting your ability to reach past or future events. So no regressive travelling to say 1900 would be possible for "you" to visit. Since "you" did not exist at that point of reference in that timeline.

However lets say you wanted to go to an alt-timeline where you were 30 and just got married to a beautiful women or super model this maybe entirely possible, but unknown would be the "time period" of that reality.

equally if you wanted to experience being a criminal or convicted criminal having recently spilled the blood of an innocent victim this also would be possible.





[edit on 3-4-2008 by robertfenix]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
You all just had to go and do it didn't you.

Just as I thought I'd got a grip on all of this you had to spoil it!

Now my head really hurts; I ain't got a scooby what any of you are talking about now!



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
However there is one possible factor that "you" as a physically manifested being maybe bound by the reality construct for that time. Meaning if you were born in "1980" and say you are 28 now in the current space of "time" and you go to the event on the current timeline that corresponds to 1985 when you physically manifest at that point you very well maybe just 5 years old. Therefore while "time travel and alt-timeline" travel may be theoretically possible, actually being able to physically manifest "you" and your retained conscience maybe restricted to your overall lifespan, thus limiting your ability to reach past or future events. So no regressive travelling to say 1900 would be possible for "you" to visit. Since "you" did not exist at that point of reference in that timeline.


Actually it sounds to me like that's a direct transfer of one's current consciousness into one's own body in the past--something else I have long considered. So let's say you're correct: I go back to my life, at, say, 10. I manifest as my ten-year-old self. Now, do I retain my memory and knowledge of the future as I lived it? Or do I lose it, and have to face the same choices, and make the same mistakes?


However lets say you wanted to go to an alt-timeline where you were 30 and just got married to a beautiful women or super model this maybe entirely possible, but unknown would be the "time period" of that reality.


If I went back to age 10, and retained my knowledge of the future, I could make different choices and change my reality into something very different. Thus, I create a new reality. The possibility exists even if I forget the future, because I may stumble on something I do differently, act on a gut feeling I ignored before, etc.


equally if you wanted to experience being a criminal or convicted criminal having recently spilled the blood of an innocent victim this also would be possible.


Essentially, one might be next to immortal, because one could effectively live out one life, go back to a certain point, change from there, live a different life, and go back again ad infinitum, until one gathers so much experience and knowledge that there's little else to explore.


[edit on 4/3/2008 by The Nighthawk]

[edit on 4/3/2008 by The Nighthawk]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Being capable of traveling to the past and manifesting as your 10 year old and living through the same events would imply that you believe that all possible timelines are somehow captured on some universal video tape.

I somehow doubt this is the case, I'd rather believe it to be like this:
We have "Now"
When you read this "Now" has passed.
Now it is impossible to go back to the original "Now" to see how the moment was created.

What I would rather believe is that everything becomes younger through some weird magical mumbo jumbo.

We have "Now"
I press the post button "19:11" on my pc.
Travel to the past.
Notice a post from "19:11" and look at my pc clock, "19:11".

However my body has rejuvenated to that of a 10 year old.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LateApexer313

I don't consider someone with a BS in Physics from Harvard and a PhD in same from Berkley to be "kookoo" and here's some more:


More than an education is required to be correct. Kaku also has described on a recent Science Channel documentary how a car can run on compressed air (true), how such a car could improve energy efficiency (speculative), and how the air pressure generated from such a vehicle could be used to replenish the compressed air reserve (scientifically impossible for so many reasons). This is one example of many similar scientific mistakes he has made through the years I have heard him. And before you mention that he had someone else write what he said, he said it. It therefore affects his credibility as a scientist.


Granted, it's mind-blowing material for those of us who didn't major in Physics, but just because someone doesn't understand something doesn't make it any less true IMO.


Actually, time travel may well be possible. I have no argument with that. and I will apologize for my knee-jerk reaction to the name. I have simply seen this man misrepresent science too many times, convincing way too many people of something that is blatantly impossible in the world of physics. His name added to any theory or idea has absolutely no effect on my agreement or disagreement with the said theory or idea.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541

Many physicists consider some of his ideas "kookoo" as well. However they make the distinction between the theories proper, and the man himself. Nobody can refute his position in the field of theoretical physics as a pioneer. Remember, early explorers were "kookoo" for thinking that they could avoid falling off flat Earth if they continued to sail west.


I make the distinction between the man and the ideas he represents. And again, I will apologize for my immediate reaction to the name. However, if on person has been saved from believing in one of his more 'koo-koo' statements (see my last post for an example), I believe my initial response would be justified.

I suggest anyone seeing a discussion with this man simply be aware that all he says is not true.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   
if time travel is possible i doubt travel to the future future is possible, i think it would work something like you can travel back in time then return to the time of departure only and not beyond as that time dont exist, so travelback an forwards in time fromany time before departure would be possible just not beyond departure, now the weird thing is time would continue past the departure time of when you left so that timeline would be erased on you return to the departure time?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Finn1916
I take it this guy has not seen back to the future or the butterfly effect. Time travel would be dangerous, as if you mess with one little thing, it could spell disaster.


unless your joking basing ANYTHING off a Hollywood movie is absolutely ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Oh goodie another Time travel thread...I really am curious about this topic. It appears that Kaku has the chops to be able to discuss this at least in the realm of theoretical possibility.. I can see where other more "hard core" non-theoretical scientists might label him "Waco", but anyone with this much obvious intellect and education is worth at least listen to in my opinion. I am going to buy his book, the man has a right to sell his ideas without this demeaning the worth of them. It will be interesting to get a better grasp on how the new wave of Physics
comes to terms with this theory. Flagged so I can keep up on this without my head swimming to badly.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I've always thought of Kaku as one of those things David Icke would call a "Repeater". He's a bright guy, but not innovative.

It seems to me that all his energy goes into seeing what is going on in the current climate of scientific thinking, but he's not one of the movers and shakers himself. He's not one of those eccentric geniuses toiling away in a midnight laboratory, bursting at the seams with ideas, knowing that he's on to something big. More like a reporter who actually understands the scientific language.

I've heard his talks on C2C over the years, and it seems to me that his opinion of what is or is possible can't be budged when you ask him at the time... as though whatever science believes on that day is the absolute undeniable truth, rock solid.

Yet, ask him the same question 1 year later and suddenly a whole different story is told. All because some research group out there somewhere started saying it. All the impossible things, all the certain things, all the things which we think we understand are his story, but not 1 line of it has he written himself.

He's a slave to trends.


Oh, and one other thing that just rubs me the wrong way with this guy: He seems to be paid to only say certain things, and completely dance around some of the really tough questions. Like the following:

Q. Is time travel possible?
A. Yes!

Q. Who is funding time travel reserarch?
A. It's expensive.


That didn't answer the question. WE KNOW who funds this kind of research. The criminals at the hands of the money printing presses, who hire every ounce of talent and productivity in this world with an intention of using it for selfish and controlling means.

[edit on 6-4-2008 by ianr5741]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
One thing struck me upon reading;

Category 1 = likely to occur in the near future.
Time travel.

Category 3 = impossible.
Knowing the future.


If it's possible to travel through time, wouldn't it then be possible to know the future?
Am I missing something here?

[edit on 3/4/08 by Freeborn]

The future of only things that you would never effect. Talk to a few people and the simple act of doing that will change every step they make in the future, if their choices they make don't affect something you know about the future then you will know the future.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   
When most people think of time travel, they think of a time machine and stuff like that. I think what kaku means by time travel is the whole time moves slower if you go faster (ie if you go through a wormhole, and the side you enter is going at one speed, and the exit is moving slower, then you come out in the past.) Honestly that is the only way I believe that time travel is at all possible, but of course thats IMO.



Originally posted by LateApexer313
I think he was instrumental back in the day for proposing String Theory if I remember correctly.
[edit on 3-4-2008 by LateApexer313]


Yes you are correct! ^_^



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Finn1916
I take it this guy has not seen back to the future or the butterfly effect. Time travel would be dangerous, as if you mess with one little thing, it could spell disaster.


Not nessasarilly, if we live in a world with billions of parallell universes. In my opinion changing an event in the past would open up a new parallell universe. The world would still be the same in the current universe, but in te new parallell universe the former would exist until the change was made and from there the world would be different. Just a thought.



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo Christian Mystic
 


this is a very common thought, and I believe that may be the case. Of course im no scientist, but this seems like a very good explination.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join