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.

 

SCI: Time Travel 101: A How To Guide

page: 10
163
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose

hmmm, let me think about that one. Time, is more or less the measurement of how fast the universe is expanding....or that is how I have come to understand it within the confines of this theory.

Going on that, it seems safe to me to assume that as time "expands" so does the universe or rather, space. So in a way, I am not seeing a difference in saying space or space and time.


Time is space..space is time. you cant have one without the other.

Time is a measurement of the rate of change.


That is exactly what I was saying... or rather trying to say. Thanks.




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Perhaps there are some wormholes or black holes in the earth. We are part of the univers and I think than that kind of holes could exist here.

Is a possibility, don't you think?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deicide88
Perhaps there are some wormholes or black holes in the earth. We are part of the univers and I think than that kind of holes could exist here.

Is a possibility, don't you think?


If there was a black hole within the earth, this planet would not be here. It would be sucked into the black hole and devoured and stretched into spaghetti and ultimately the matter that makes up the earth would be ripped apart.

As for worm holes, the theory states, that assuming the entire universe is spinning, they could form naturally anywhere within the universe so I guess the possibility is there. However if there was a worm hole in the earth that takes us from one spot on this planet to another simply just by going through it , it seems that we would have found something like that already.

Also. natural formed worm holes are very unstable by themselves. Unstable to the point that if a single piece of matter enters, the worm hole collapses on itself and closes forever.

In order to use a natural formed worm hole we would first have to figure out how to get around the issue of unstableness. Can you imagine what it would be like being inside of a worm hole when it colapsed? Yikes!

[edit on 9-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by antar
 


Thanks Antar.

I admitedly know very little about Deja vou however the idea that it is the feeling we get from changing realities or what have you is interesting to me. The question that it raises for me though is that the times I have had deja vou it seemed to be totally random. So what would trigger this reality switch to begin with?





You experience Deja Vu when a time traveler did something to change the time line or something within it that has had some effect on you and your feeling the aftermath of what has or is changing for you. They're out there i believe.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by h1satsu




You experience Deja Vu when a time traveler did something to change the time line or something within it that has had some effect on you and your feeling the aftermath of what has or is changing for you. They're out there i believe.


Well then why though, would not everybody get that deja vou feeling? I mean, if reality changes for one then surely it changes for all...

Actually On second thought, I forget that according to the very theory that I wrote about, no two people experience time the same. In a sense we are all on a seperate time line so in that sense that would explain why only one person experience deja vou and not everybody...

That is, assuming what you are saying is true. how interesting.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by scubagravy
Great thread s n f,

Though until our anatomy changes to handle such velocities this is along way off, such a shame. Guess we have to start somewhere.


Thanks.

I suspect you are correct in that going so fast would crush a person to death... Unless perhaps we were able to create some type of craft that had a stable environment on the inside...?

I would have no idea on how to achieve such a thing but if it is possible that would get around such a... crushing... problem ....



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
And a Kind of time portal?



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Deicide88
 


Like what?

I suppose you could consider a worm hole a "time portal" as theoretically you enter it after it has been loop on it self and it takes you to any time you wish to go. But that brings us back to the whole instability issue.

What exactly are you asking when you ask about "time portals"? I can't really answer very specifically because I am not sure what it is you have in mind.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
The article was OK, but some of the facts were inaccurate.

According to current theory - which could be replaced at any time if new discoveries require it - nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. However, nothing other than light (actually, electromagnetic radiation) can travel *at* the speed of light. Anything else - all matter - can be accelerated to quite high speeds, but cannot ever *reach* the speed of light.

Einstein's equations certainly show that local time can move faster or slower than the time of an observer, depending on frames of reference and relative speeds. However, Einstein's equations do *not* show that time can be reversed.

One of the important results of Einstein's theory was that it is impossible to say who is moving and who is not. All you can say is who is moving, relative to some arbitrary reference point. There is no way to say something is "at rest". All you can say is that it's at rest, relative to something else. But both may be zipping along quite briskly compared to something else.

What this means is, if two spaceships pass one another at relativistic speeds, each will see the other as moving slowly, of being flattened (front-to-back), etc. Each will feel that their time is perfectly normal, not slowed down a bit. There is no way of telling which is "really" moving. Whatever applies to one must also apply to the other.

In your example, it is true that the traveler would age more slowly than the people who remained on Earth. This is because the traveler *accelerates*. Acceleration affects the local passage of time, slowing it down.

Einstein discovered that, for small regions, there was no way to distinguish acceleration from gravitational force. In other words, a person in a box who felt "weight" would have no way of knowing whether he was in a gravitational field (such as being on the Earth), or whether the box was smoothly accelerating. There would be no physical test he could perform that would allow him to distinguish one from the other. And what *that* means is, if you were in a very intense gravitational field, your time would move more slowly than someone who was not in the field. Of course, you'd also be squashed flatter than a pancake, a small price to pay for science.

There are an infinite number of possible equations that allow time travel. The problem isn't with finding equations that allow it; it's with finding equations that actually describe physical reality. A simple example is how classical physics differs from quantum physics.

In classical physics, any measurement - length, time, wavelength, mass etc. - can be as small as you want. You can keep dividing a distance in half as many times as you like, and it all has meaning. Unfortunately, this isn't how the physical world behaves.

In quantum theory, there is a minimum measurement. No value less than that minimum has physical meaning. For instance, there is something called the Planck length. It's the smallest meaningful distance. It is meaningless to speak of any length smaller than the Planck length. Suddenly all those classical equations, when rewritten to take this quantum phenomenon into account, start to work out correctly.

Goedel's equations do show that time travel is possible, in certain rotating universes. What they don't show is whether the physical universe actually fits any of those mathematical universes. They're intriguing, and as far as I know physicists haven't yet been able to rule out the possibility, but... that's a long way from saying any such universe has been confirmed to exist.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Thanks for the reply.

Just so you know though. The article does not present it self as truth. It is about the THEORY behind time travel. Not facts just the theory and a contemplation of how it might be achieved via the special theory of relativity.

I am well aware of more up to date theories such as string theory and M theory.( these even suggest the possibility of infinite universes all existing at once)But this one focuses on just special theory of relativity.

Old info but certainly still very relevant today especially considering that theories such as string and M theories came about due to the advances in science that special theory of relativity brought.


On that note, you do present VERY valid points and I have a lot of respect for you for doing so. Thanks

[edit on 9-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wrunner
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Nice post. I really enjoyed reading this and it illuminated some things that were previously unclear to me. It was quite interesting reading the bit about 20 earth years going by and only 3 years for the "travelers." Very cool stuff



Thank you very much. I am glad that I was able to clarify a no doubt hard to understand, subject.




posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Sorry, my fault.

What I meant to say was: I read in some other threads that it has been found some time portals in different places of the world like in Arizona (www.abovetopsecret.com...).

Besides maybe some change in the past already happened.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Deicide88
 


Oh I see, I don't know a thing about that particular case, I have not ever heard of any time portal in Phoenix but as I said, assuming that the theory brought forth by van stockum is accurate and the universe does actually spin, then worm holes should be able to form naturally in where within the confines of this universe.

I suppose it is possible for one to form on earth like that, but it just seems like something like that would be more... known... if you will.

And theoretically speaking, I suppose that if a person had gone back in time and changed history ( really their mere presence would be a change) I imagine that we would not know because if you changed the past, the universe or what have you would alter itself to that reality and the future/present would be as if that change has always been how it was. So in other words my speculation tells me you are correct as far as that is concerned

Of course that is speculation though.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Amazingly written thread here, really helped me understand alot.

After reading this I was looking at an article on Telegraph.co.uk about a pair of German physicists who claim to have broken the speed of light, when something it stated made something confusing click in my mind.

"Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide variety of bizarre consequences.

For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving."

It then occured to me, are the stars in the night sky, proof of time travel taking place? If we look at a star 4 million light years away, we are looking 4 million years into the past? Has the light from that star reached it's 'destination' (earth) 4 million years before it left its origin?

Or, is the opposite so? Has the light that has reached us travelled 4 million years into the future?

My apologies, this is my first post on ATS and I've most definitely just made a fool of myself.
I assume it's simpler than that and the light hasn't time travelled at all, I've just confused myself.



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Livetoknow


It then occured to me, are the stars in the night sky, proof of time travel taking place? If we look at a star 4 million light years away, we are looking 4 million years into the past? Has the light from that star reached it's 'destination' (earth) 4 million years before it left its origin?

Or, is the opposite so? Has the light that has reached us travelled 4 million years into the future?


No you have that right. The closest star is 4 light years away. What that means is , at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second) it would take the light from the star for years to travel from the star to our planet.

That means we are seeing light from 4 years ago. So yes, in a way we are looking into the past when we look at the stars at night.


Although that is not quite time travel. It just takes that light 4 years to get here.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
If string theory be true, then in theory, time travel should be possible in at least one direction. Backwards only, because the future string does not yet exist while the very act of viewing the future or the past changes its string. So you can go back but there is no guarantee you will be able to come back to the present because you changed its string and it (or perhaps you) no longer exist.

Time is a human construct anyways. Its a calibration of celestial orbits really and there is no way to physically be certain that time is a perceived or actual dimension of the human domain so we are really two dimensional and in a truly limited plane of existence, accept in the overestimation of our self worth. We think we can tell time because we have a watch, but that is like thinking you have control of the forests because you can catch a leaf.

Time is billions of year and humans live for the blink of a celestial eye, yet we think its all about us...



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by lazimodo
If string theory be true, then in theory, time travel should be possible in at least one direction. Backwards only, because the future string does not yet exist while the very act of viewing the future or the past changes its string. So you can go back but there is no guarantee you will be able to come back to the present because you changed its string and it (or perhaps you) no longer exist.


keeping in mind that I know very little about string theory, here are my thoughts....

so you are saying that if we went back in time our no longer being in the present would change the present in a way that we would no longer be able to get back because the present has now been altered?

What about the possibility of using a worm hole as suggested? Because the scenario you suggest seems to bring to mind a complete dissapearance from the present. sort of like a star trek transporter deal where you just fade out of existence or what have you.

But the way worm holes are proposed to work is that you loop it on itself and when you do so you loop time and you loop space thus making it so you can travel to any time you wish. So that way what is to stop you from traveling back to the time before you left? Theoretically speaking of course.


[edit on 9-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
From what ive seen on the net, our government already has the ability. i have seen that they found a ancient tomb, that no one had been in for over 600 years, but under the body of the king was a (ARCHIE COMIC BOOK). There have also been others, that was not the first time. For all we know, the civilizations from over 13,000 years ago, who was suppose to have technolgy that surpassed our current technology,already possed time travel. I love this topic



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OG_SWAGGA_KING
 


hmmm... an archie comic book huh? Well, that is an interesting one to say the least....

Anyway, thanks for reading, I am glad you liked it. I too love this topic! when I write, I always write what I know and like. If I don't it just feels like homework and it is dull, boring and that shows in my work when I am not interested in the subject I am writing about.

The special theory of relativity is one I am VERY interested and hopefully the quality of my article shows that!



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I apologize if this was mentioned, I'm a little bleary-eyed and skimmed, but this thread piqued my interest.

Will have to look for it, but I remember somewhere the postulate that while physical time travel may not be plausible, the viewing and study of the past, might be, if the details can be worked out to build the appropriate technology.

As you noted, we already see into the past, every time we look at distant celestial objects, but taking that logic a step further, it would be true, in a sense, that because of the speed of light everything we see is in the past, even if it's just an infinitesimally short time in the past.

Of course, right now it's just a consequence of space/time, and the distances. Even the Sun is eight minutes ( approx. ) older than what we see from Earth.

Possiblities of controlling this could be mind boggling....




top topics



 
163
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join