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: 12
163
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


In response to,whats on the other side of the universe. Micho,the physicist theory,was saying, if im right, that at the end of the universe is another universe. That there is no universe, but a multiverse. They came up with this , because ever galaxy has a blackhole in the center. Well that blackhole must lead somewere, a whitehole. Blackholes devour everything in its path,spewing them out into the whitehole. Eventually forming a new universe. It is a infinite process going on. Therfore there are infinite universe. Also that dark matter,(where SPACE itself comes from) is gravity from a parallel universe, being pulled into ours.




posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Originally posted by angrysniper

Yes that is true although spatial compression and expansion for the purposes of FTL travel are distinctly different than using a wormhole to negate the distance being traveled altogether.


Yeah, they are very different in that FTL travel is not possible according to Einsteins theory of relativity but looping a worm hole on itself is...

You are right, that scientists say if we could go faster than the speed of light around an infinitely long cylinder we could achieve going backward in time. The problem though is 1) we can not go faster than the speed of light according the Einsteins theory and 2) try as we might I just do not think we will be able to find or build an infinitely long cylinder.


That is why I went with the wormhole possibility. It is more feasable, at least according the the special theory of relativity.



[edit on 10-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by rush969
We flip a coin and create a Universe? WOOOW!!!
Talk about creationism right? The big bang?
I don´t buy it for anything really.
About going back in time one theorist (I don´t remember his name) said that when the time machine is created it will only be able to go back to the moment it was created and not further back.
That also makes sense doesn´t it?

Edited for spelling.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by rush969]


Ah I have heard that before too now that you mention it, but that is assuming we used some kind of special machine as opposed to the looped worm hole... Unless we could only go back as far as when we first looped the wormhole on itself... hmmm.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by OG_SWAGGA_KING
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


In response to,whats on the other side of the universe. Micho,the physicist theory,was saying, if im right, that at the end of the universe is another universe. That there is no universe, but a multiverse. They came up with this , because ever galaxy has a blackhole in the center. Well that blackhole must lead somewere, a whitehole. Blackholes devour everything in its path,spewing them out into the whitehole. Eventually forming a new universe. It is a infinite process going on. Therfore there are infinite universe. Also that dark matter,(where SPACE itself comes from) is gravity from a parallel universe, being pulled into ours.


Hmm, now that is interestingg. Perhaps when matter gets sucked into a black hole it does not get completely destroyed as has been suggested before. As we know white holes are the other end of a black hole and they are white because light is getting out... so I guess matter can get through...

Perhaps that matter seeping through into where nothing was before is how new universes get started?



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by tauristercus

 





Something I am not sure of is, does a universe that is already in existence have the ability to create NEW matter? Or as the universe expands is the matter just expanding and growing with it?

But by asking "have the ability to create NEW matter?" that's basically creating just a whole new set of unanswerable questions and STILL doesn't get around the central question of WHERE this new matter/energy comes from.




But is it possible for example if you are in that main/first universe to follow a branch to and inside of another universe?.

Interesting idea ... but the 1st "main objection" that pops into my . is that there's absolutely no reason to assign a "priviledged" position to one universe in preference to any other of the infinite universes. In other words, what would make that particular universe special compared to the others and therfore being accorded "main universe" status ?

Also, what special "properties" must that main universe have to be the 1st universe created and then be able to "bud off" child universes ?

All good and thought provoking questions of yours, but I just feel us sinking deeper and deeper into the mud ....



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Originally posted by tauristercus


All good and thought provoking questions of yours, but I just feel us sinking deeper and deeper into the mud ....



Absolutely, as we step further and further away from what scientists at least have a good idea about and closer to what scientists are just now really starting to look into themselves... I guess it is only naturally to sink into the mud like this...

As we dig deeper I find more questions than I had before... Yikes...

I guess this is going to happen though, because when it comes down to it we just don't have the answers yet so ultimately all we can do is speculate and question...

As for what could mandate one universe as being the main one... I just don't know. That question of mine made even me wonder what caused the FIRST universe to come into existence? Or was there ever a first? I mean, they do say there is an infinite number of them so if there is an infinite number there can not really be a first can there...


EDIT: Fixing a few typos

[edit on 10-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


I think there can be a first. Remeber time and space hasnt always existed. Therfore the MULTIVERSE,at one point did not exist. Also the branches from each universe to the next are wormholes.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Originally posted by angrysniper
Yes that is true although spatial compression and expansion for the purposes of FTL travel are distinctly different than using a wormhole to negate the distance being traveled altogether.


Yeah, they are very different in that FTL travel is not possible according to Einsteins theory of relativity but looping a worm hole on itself is...

You are right, that scientists say if we could go faster than the speed of light around an infinitely long cylinder we could achieve going backward in time. The problem though is 1) we can not go faster than the speed of light according the Einsteins theory and 2) try as we might I just do not think we will be able to find or build an infinitely long cylinder.


That is why I went with the wormhole possibility. It is more feasable, at least according the the special theory of relativity.



FTL travel indeed is possible according to special relativity, though not in the conventional sense of accelerating to or beyond the speed of light.


In 1994, the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre proposed a method of stretching space in a wave which would in theory cause the fabric of space a. of a spacecraft to contract and the space behind it to expand.[1] The ship would ride this wave inside a region known as a warp bubble of flat space. Since the ship is not moving within this bubble, but carried along as the region itself moves, conventional relativistic effects such as time dilation do not apply in the way they would in the case of a ship moving at high velocity through flat spacetime. Also, this method of travel does not actually involve moving faster than light in a local sense, since a light beam within the bubble would still always move faster than the ship; it is only "faster than light" in the sense that, thanks to the contraction of the space in front of it, the ship could reach its destination faster than a light beam restricted to travelling outside the warp bubble. Thus, the Alcubierre drive does not contradict the conventional claim that relativity forbids a slower-than-light object to accelerate to faster-than-light speeds. However, there are no known methods to create such a warp bubble in a region that does not already contain one, or to leave the bubble once inside it, so the Alcubierre drive remains a theoretical concept at this time.


en.wikipedia.org...

I suggest further research into general relativity and special relativity. It is not quite so cut and dry.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by angrysniper]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Originally posted by angrysniper



In 1994, the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre proposed a method of stretching space in a wave which would in theory cause the fabric of space a. of a spacecraft to contract and the space behind it to expand.[1] The ship would ride this wave inside a region known as a warp bubble of flat space. Since the ship is not moving within this bubble, but carried along as the region itself moves, conventional relativistic effects such as time dilation do not apply in the way they would in the case of a ship moving at high velocity through flat spacetime. Also, this method of travel does not actually involve moving faster than light in a local sense, since a light beam within the bubble would still always move faster than the ship; it is only "faster than light" in the sense that, thanks to the contraction of the space in front of it, the ship could reach its destination faster than a light beam restricted to travelling outside the warp bubble. Thus, the Alcubierre drive does not contradict the conventional claim that relativity forbids a slower-than-light object to accelerate to faster-than-light speeds. However, there are no known methods to create such a warp bubble in a region that does not already contain one, or to leave the bubble once inside it, so the Alcubierre drive remains a theoretical concept at this time.

en.wikipedia.org...

I suggest further research into general relativity and special relativity. It is not quite so cut and dry.


With all due respect I have done plenty of research. What you are proposing has nothing to do with the special theory of relativity. In fact if you read the quote again you will see that it seperates itself from the special theory of relativity...


the Alcubierre drive does not contradict the conventional claim that relativity forbids a slower-than-light object to accelerate to faster-than-light speeds.


My article is about the theoretical science behind time travel as proposed by the special theory of relativity. I acknowledge that there are many other theories out there that also talk about time travel and explore other ways of doing so, but this thread is only about the special theory of relativity. You are more than welcome to start another thread about those other theories if you like though.

As for your suggestion of " further research" With all due respect...


one of the consequences of special relativity is that (assuming causality is to be preserved), no information or material object can travel faster than light. On the other hand, the logical situation is not as clear in the case of general relativity, so it is an open question whether there is some fundamental principle that preserves causality (and therefore prevents motion faster than light) in general relativity.


en.wikipedia.org...

As for your idea...


Some have pointed out that an object could in theory move at greater than the speed of light, so long as it did not accelerate to reach that speed. So far no physical entities have ever displayed that property, however.


physics.about.com...

Thank you for your concern but I do know what I am talking about on this one.





[edit on 10-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
FTL travel is not possible according to Einsteins theory of relativity.


I disagree. I have no facts to back it up, but he is saying it is impossible, according to his theory. Nothing is impossible. they said it was impossible for man to fly, to go to the moon, to split a atom etc.,



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OG_SWAGGA_KING
 


At this point all I can do is encourage you to go out there and find that proof. That is how science works. If you never question anything... well we would still think that the world is flat and that the earth is the center of the universe...

So yeah, go out there and see what you can find...


[edit on 10-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Interesting read - I like your theory, Im however stuck on the travelling in the past - I myself do not think that it is physically possible no matter what the source of time travel is ( wormhole - time machine etc)
the past in a physical sense has past ( obviously) So how can one travel to something that is no longer?

With travelling into the future, it really wouldnt be instantly travelling to the future - you are cheating our human time in your theory - (to which i like) whether this will ever be possible I don't know.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Ok i undestand what your are saying, about time in the physical past has past. What if in certain parallel univere was the past as in 3 days ago, was everyday in the parallel.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Originally posted by INSANCT

Interesting read - I like your theory, Im however stuck on the travelling in the past - I myself do not think that it is physically possible no matter what the source of time travel is ( wormhole - time machine etc)
the past in a physical sense has past ( obviously) So how can one travel to something that is no longer?


You raise a good question, According to the theory, what happens is you have a worm hole and loop it on it self... When you do this it loops space and it loops time.

Theoretically speaking because time is now looped you can now travel to any time within that loop. Assuming that it is possible to loop the entire universe on itself you would then be able to travel to any time that has existed so far.

The question is though, what will be waiting for us when we go back?If we go back, one year, for example will we be able to interact with the universe as it was one year ago?

The Multiverse theory suggests that there are an infinite number of alternate universes... keeping in mind this is speculation the only way I can see history being recorded in a way that we can visit and interact with the people and environment as it is... Is perhaps if each passing moment is a universe all its own... or rather becomes one.

I once read that each person has there own reality/universe, no to people share the same time line/reality...

I don't know perhaps the answer does in fact lie within the Multiverse theory.


With travelling into the future, it really wouldn't be instantly travel\ling to the future - you are cheating our human time in your theory - (to which i like) whether this will ever be possible I don't know.


Theoretically speaking it already is possible... But the question is, will we ever gain the technology to do so... I tend to think so.. but ultimately only time will tell.

Anyway, Thanks for posting, I am glad you liked my article.

As you can see there has been a lot of fascinating conversation in this thread that has led to all sorts of amazing possibilities and questions.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by OG_SWAGGA_KING
Ok i undestand what your are saying, about time in the physical past has past. What if in certain parallel univere was the past as in 3 days ago, was everyday in the parallel.

I am sorry, I am not quite sure what you are asking me here...

Would you be willing to try and rephrase that for me?

I will try my best to answer it in the morning. It is late here and I am off to bed.

Good night!


[edit on 10-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Originally posted by angrysniper



In 1994, the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre proposed a method of stretching space in a wave which would in theory cause the fabric of space a. of a spacecraft to contract and the space behind it to expand.[1] The ship would ride this wave inside a region known as a warp bubble of flat space. Since the ship is not moving within this bubble, but carried along as the region itself moves, conventional relativistic effects such as time dilation do not apply in the way they would in the case of a ship moving at high velocity through flat spacetime. Also, this method of travel does not actually involve moving faster than light in a local sense, since a light beam within the bubble would still always move faster than the ship; it is only "faster than light" in the sense that, thanks to the contraction of the space in front of it, the ship could reach its destination faster than a light beam restricted to travelling outside the warp bubble. Thus, the Alcubierre drive does not contradict the conventional claim that relativity forbids a slower-than-light object to accelerate to faster-than-light speeds. However, there are no known methods to create such a warp bubble in a region that does not already contain one, or to leave the bubble once inside it, so the Alcubierre drive remains a theoretical concept at this time.

en.wikipedia.org...

I suggest further research into general relativity and special relativity. It is not quite so cut and dry.


With all due respect I have done plenty of research. What you are proposing has nothing to do with the special theory of relativity. In fact if you read the quote again you will see that it seperates itself from the special theory of relativity...


the Alcubierre drive does not contradict the conventional claim that relativity forbids a slower-than-light object to accelerate to faster-than-light speeds.


My article is about the theoretical science behind time travel as proposed by the special theory of relativity. I acknowledge that there are many other theories out there that also talk about time travel and explore other ways of doing so, but this thread is only about the special theory of relativity. You are more than welcome to start another thread about those other theories if you like though.

As for your suggestion of " further research" With all due respect...


one of the consequences of special relativity is that (assuming causality is to be preserved), no information or material object can travel faster than light. On the other hand, the logical situation is not as clear in the case of general relativity, so it is an open question whether there is some fundamental principle that preserves causality (and therefore prevents motion faster than light) in general relativity.


en.wikipedia.org...

As for your idea...


Some have pointed out that an object could in theory move at greater than the speed of light, so long as it did not accelerate to reach that speed. So far no physical entities have ever displayed that property, however.


physics.about.com...

Thank you for your concern but I do know what I am talking about on this one.





[edit on 10-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]


The last quote you provided should be all that needs to be said about the alcubierre drive. The object in question (the ship) is not moving, it is the space around it that is being altered relative to the space that would need to be 'traveled' in order to wind up at a destination. No information (matter) is traveling faster than light or even close to it. From our perspective, of course, an object within this warped space would appear to be traveling faster than light without violating the light barrier. It is true that this has never been observed as a natural phenomenon, but what we are talking about here is an artificial phenomenon, so that is not relevant. Now, considering that altering the fabric of space in order to "travel" faster than light also involves altering relative time (because they are one in the same, as you know), I'd say that FTL capability is intrinsic to time travel, and vice versa



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I guess what im trying to say is, what if certain parallel universe was the physical past? Someone said that u couldnt go to the past, because it would be the physical past and already has happened. therfore you could not travel back to that point in time.

I know this is sort of off subject. We would have to be a GALATIC 3 society in order to control events in our galaxy. That would be the only way to bend space on top of its self.
We are GALATIC 0 at this current point in time.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Now then.

Both string theory and M theory are indeed just that, THEROY. With zero proof.

In fact there are so many string theories’ that work mathematically that is why they came up with M theory.

So have a look at this idea and see what you think.

Travel into the future we know for sure is possible Atomic clocks sky lab etc, even if only for a fraction of a second.

We know the past has already happened and theory, there that work again says it is possible.

Now I am talking single time line now.

The past as happened and the future is there waiting for us.

What if all time has already happened???

We have the proof we can travel into the future therefore it exists, see what I mean??

Indeed are we just a big computer game?? It may sound silly but some boffin came up with it.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by angrysniper
 


I may have missed your point regarding the hypothetical "Alcubierre drive" and it's relevance to time travel.

I'm familiar with the contention of collapsing space infront of an object, say a space ship, whilst simultaneously expanding space behind the object but due to the object being contained within a region of space that is locally stationary to the object, relativity effects are NOT observed.

"... would be immune from ... relativistic effects such as time dilation since the passage of time inside the warp bubble would be the same as that outside".

Therefore even if the Alcubierre drive was feasible, it's occupants inside the local bubble would NOT notice any contraction in time relative to those outside the local bubble ... therefore no "free ride' into the future.

And DEFINITELY no travel back in time either !



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by angrysniper
 


I may have missed your point regarding the hypothetical "Alcubierre drive" and it's relevance to time travel.

I'm familiar with the contention of collapsing space infront of an object, say a space ship, whilst simultaneously expanding space behind the object but due to the object being contained within a region of space that is locally stationary to the object, relativity effects are NOT observed.

"... would be immune from ... relativistic effects such as time dilation since the passage of time inside the warp bubble would be the same as that outside".

Therefore even if the Alcubierre drive was feasible, it's occupants inside the local bubble would NOT notice any contraction in time relative to those outside the local bubble ... therefore no "free ride' into the future.

And DEFINITELY no travel back in time either !


I wasn't implying the alcubierre drive could be used for time travel, but that the methods for implementing the drive (manipulating spacetime itself) could possibly be helpful in achieving time travel.




top topics



 
163
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join