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.

# SCI: Time Travel 101: A How To Guide

page: 9
163
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 05:57 AM

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

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:00 AM

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Time Travel 101
By Scott Lenig
2009-08-08

But just how fast can one move? Science shows that we cannot move at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). We cannot because the faster an object moves, the more massive it becomes and the more massive it becomes the more energy is required for it to build speed. Simply put, collecting enough energy to go the speed of light is just out of the question.

Okay, first a dumb question, but I'd still like to hear the responses because the image in my head is neat.

If the faster you go the more massive your ship becomes then, assuming you could hit the speed of light before running out fuel, then wouldn't the fuel tanks continue to gain more mass as well? Once reaching the speed of light, if your mass becomes infinite then wouldn't your fuel supply also have reached infinite mass and therefore also be infinite?

To further explain in more understandable terms picture this; here we are in 2009 and you and your friend have acquired a space ship that can go 99 percent of the speed of light. Your friend gets in the ship and takes off at near the speed of light. They travel 10 light years then turn right around and comes right back at the same speed. When their trip is over, only three years have gone by for them. But here on earth it is now the year 2029. It took your friend ten earth years to get there and ten earth years to get back but because she was the one in motion only 3 years have gone by for her.

In a way your friend has just time traveled 20 years into the future and it only took 3 years.

Another question. From what I know about the theory of relativity. I may be wrong about this, but isn't it true that according to the theory of relativity if I'm moving away from you at 10 miles per hour then that, according to the theory, is also mathmatically equivalent and is the same as you moving away from me at 10 miles per hour?

In other words mathmatically, if I'm moving away from you it's exactly the same as if you were moving from me. How come only the person that gets on the spaceship stays young and the person on the planet gets old?

If it's because of increasing gravity due to the increasing mass of the spaceship then wouldn't that most likely mean that time has in fact not slowed down at all and what has really happened is simply the particles in your body have been weighed down by the extra gravity? Therefore those particles move slower because they're weighed down. Therefore you appear to age slower and move slower and think slower.

However, to you, you won't notice anything at all until you get back because the time keeping computer in your brain has simply been slowed by the extra gravity and therefore simply clicks less in a given time period.

It's like putting two computer together and then slowing down the electrons and everything else in one and therefore it processes data slower. But just because it's going slower doesn't necessarily mean "time" slowed. It just means you have a really heavy, retarded computer.

Also, let's assume that's not true and time really does "slow" down. Also, let's assume that if you travel FASTER than light you go back in time. Then, is there some equilibrium point, such as exactly light speed, that if you traveled at that speed, time would simply stop? Because you're right in between that point where time either goes forward if you slow down or backwards if you speed up.

If there is such a point on the speed line (if you will) then that means from your point of view time simply stops. Which means no matter how far you traveled it would take you NO TIME from your point of view.

Therefore, you would never need to travel faster than that to get to the other side of the universe. You would simply be at your destination INSTANTLY because time is not moving from your perspective.

However, there's a problem with that. Wouldn't that mean that every point along your path such as the 1 million mile mark and the 2 million mile mark and the 3 million mile mark would all be reached instantly?

No matter how far it is, you can reach it INSTANTLY. Therefore wouldn't you have to be at ALL those points AT THE SAME TIME? You'd have to exist at every point on your journey at the SAME TIME because no matter which point of your journey you're talking about, it would take you NO TIME to get there. Therefore you'd have to be at all of them at one time. You would be everywhere at once. Or not?

[edit on 9-8-2009 by tinfoilman]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:11 AM
The general idea is to create shortcuts and bend the observed physical laws.
To "cheat" our way around.
Therefore we would not have to actually fight the physical laws that bind us.
Just disappear from point A and appear at point B like point B was the next step after point A in our physical dimension.
Not moving in to a parallel reality, not making a jump through time remaining in the same physical spot.

Exit from point A and entrance in point B have to be in an simulated and technically controlled reality. Probably not a reality that can exist naturally but is "manufactured".

The same way our imagination works.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by spacebot]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by spacebot]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:12 AM

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Anyway, This is just one of the endless fascinating things that lie within Einsteins theory of relativity.

Einstein was soo yesterday - you need to look at maxwells theories and some modern thinkers such as the 'order of the black sun' illuminati/nazi people that have mastered all of this and more - and then some more on top of that. Unfortunatey they're satan woripping Nazis and form 'black projects' today which include TT.

pages.prodigy.net...

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 06:29 AM

these are only hypothesis, we can't proove it... And it got 70flags?

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:06 AM

Originally posted by _damon

these are only hypothesis, we can't proove it... And it got 70flags?

Doesn't that just go to show that a thread that has an interesting subject as its basis and is informative (hypothesis or not) has a great appeal to a many people here on ATS.

Personally, I'd rather contribute to (and flag/star) such a thread as this rather than participate (and waste my time) in much of the drivel, misinformation and crap that runs rampant here on ATS.

In fact, thanks for reminding me to flag it also !

[edit on 9-8-2009 by tauristercus]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:30 AM
Neutrinos and tachyons (theoretically) move many orders of magnitude faster than photons. The "speed of light" depends on the environment it passes through and the maximum speed isn't the fastest thing in the universe. Someday we may discover particles faster than tachyons

the current ACTUAL theory put forward by people in thescientific community (see the universe tv show from BBC) is that we will find a way to tranform And area of space time (space ship) to have tachyon like properties and then we can travel anywhere and not worry about dust particles or even stars bothering us on the way

Also on the topic of gravity, Michael kiaku and friends redescribed gravity as time space distortions hence why we are able to travel at such ridiculous theoretical speeds in relation to other celestial bodies; the earth travels 69000 Km/h
our solar system travels at y speed in relation to another, galaxy then travelspeedS speed in relation to another, Our local group of galaxies travels at x speed in relation to another etc ad infinitum(or not)

my point is we are theoretically moving very fast but through the force of gravity it isn't perceived that way "locally"

anyways I digress,
deny ignorance and please back up your pet theories with something that can be explained

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:43 AM

You've manage to summarize a rather complicated theory in a way that enables the average person to understand it. Well written op.

I found this analogy quite interesting.

This is a quote from Ted Roach, author of -

The Physics of a Flying Saucer,

Chapter 3 “The Concept of Time” -

“Time is related to motion.”

“Consider a raft floating down a uniformly flowing river. If the river travels with constant velocity then the raft travels with the same velocity. The raft requires no motor to stay with the flow. No force is required for any floating debris to stay with the flow. The raft reaches a constant velocity and maintains it. In other words the raft and it’s occupants reach a constant time change and no force is required to maintain that time change.

The river is not a force field to the raft, it is a constant velocity field, or in time physics, a constant time field. The particles making up the river are all travelling at a constant time. The raft is in the field and requires no force to maintain its velocity.

It may appear to the observer on the bank of the river that the raft is being carried down the river and is therefore being pushed down by a force, but to the raft no force is required. Someone falling out of the raft would be carried down the river along with the raft. Rubbish being thrown out of the raft would travel with the raft.

If the occupants of the raft decide to stop in the flow of the river by tying up to an old tree stump, then a force is required between the stump and the raft via a rope to prevent the raft moving in the river. So a force is required to stop the raft in the river, not to keep it moving with the flow.”

“The fact is that gravity is like a flowing river of variable time. An object falling freely in a gravitational field has no force acting on it. Only when the object is stopped in the field, as we are on the surface of the Earth, does a force act, and that is what gives us sore feet if we are standing up for too long, and a sore rear if we are sitting down for too long.”

This example illustrates that time is not a constant throughout the universe and that gravitation can play a part as well. Worth considering when speculating about the possibility of time travel.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by tauristercus
How that would affect the course of history, I don't know. Would the time line split at that point creating an alternative reality?

As far as I understand, that is the accepted theory by today's theoretical scientists. Parallel/tangent 'universes'. You go back, save JFK, then manage to get back to here, JFK is still dead here, but not there. Pretty sure you can prove this with memory, which are specialized neurons. I would assume, though, that this means we could go to our future and come back to the present to try to affect a catastrophe.

Though, I, also, don't think time travel in the sense of actually skipping time in either direction is possible. The Hafele-Keating experiment shows that atomic clocks in planes at x height, y time, z speed, b direction will achieve a negative(eastbound) or positive(westbound) net change in time. Yet, when they land, the only thing that changed was their own frame of reference (all the rest of the world goes on and they "enter back into the rest of the world"). They may have aged a bit less (flying east) or more (flying west), but they really didn't skip "master time" by a few hundred nanoseconds, relative to the rest of us. Their flight was scheduled to land at 10:30.00001 AM - and so it did.

Hafele-Keating Experiment:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

I would expect the same, as has been said much earlier, as in travelling to a far off galaxy. Your time may change differently, but if you leave at 10:00 AM tomorrow from Earth and are scheduled to land at 10:00 AM on same day 2012, then I would expect that to be when you arrive there.

LOL this brings a question. If you could actually travel at speeds fast enough, for a long enough time, would you get younger, relative to others on Earth?

I want to say no, but I really have no idea how speed affects your bodily systems, or if tissues aging is even dependant on how their molucues/atoms are working (to this, again, I'd say no). Now I do know that less gravity = quicker decomposition of soft tissues in the body, hence why astronauts need to work out so much. No clue as to what it does to the overall aging process. As far as I know, astronauts who come back tend to live as long as the rest of us.

What I think is that our bodies would not really be affected. Atomic activity may change during travel but as far as I know, molecular activity has nothing to do with aging. But, like I said, I don't really know.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:01 AM
And lets not forget this simple equation:

If ever into infinity a device is ever built that exploits these methods of time travel, specifically the ability to go backwards in time, then it exists today!

Although we may not be able to build them with todays technology, one might either be sharing this technology with us, taking us back and forth, or maybe we have stolen it. (Wouldnt that be interesting if this were standard equipment on alien spacecraft?)

Also: The cylinder you write about brings to light another interesting point. The amount of gravity that would exist in the cylinder would be massive. In fact the "machine" would actually be built of several neutron stars for the rotation to be fast enough.

Interestingly enough, it was calcultated that if a craft was built to go into the cylinder, the shape that would be MOST efficient to withstand the gravitational forces and hold humanoids and their equipment would be non other thannnnnnnnn:

A saucer.

So, we must consider the possibility that UFOs could simply be or include time traveling humans, more highly evolved, from a much distant future, coming back to the past!

I read about this years ago, but here is a website that explains it all and shows a diagram of the time machine.

leebor2.100webspace.net...

[edit on 9-8-2009 by thatblissguy]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by thatblissguy]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by thatblissguy]

[edit on 9-8-2009 by thatblissguy]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 09:30 AM

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

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Angelsoftheapocalypse

Did the Helicopter actually travel through time linearly or did the gravity "bubble" actually accelerate the helicopter due to the helicopter not being weighed down by earth's gravity?

Well, it turns out the artificial gravity wave generators have many uses.
Which is probably why all knowledge has been suppressed for over
60 years. During one experiment 3 gravity wave generators are
placed on a table 120 degrees apart. They point towards a common
point in the center of the table. Turn them on and you have yourself
a gravity wave dampening field. During the experiment a candle on
a plate is placed in the center. Wow! the candle still burns bright
but the wax doesn't melt. Time has slowed down.
I guess they call that Gravity Wave Dampening Fields 101.

Just think. When they install this technology on the ISS they can
walk around with simulated Earth gravity 9.8 m/sec squared.
No more floating around.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Eurisko2012]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by thefreepatriot

very interesting but how could you create a field around the helicopter without the reactor?? doesn't a reaction need to take place in order to create such a field or is this simply using electricity?

Very good question!
The gravity wave generators consume very little power.
They use electrostatic power supplies like a neon sign.
Very high voltage but very low amps.
Just like the spacecraft you need to install a wave guide .
It's simply electricity.
There is a relationship between gravity and electrostatic energy.
Townsend Brown experimented with dielectric plates for years.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:35 AM

Firstly, just because some thought experiment sounds good does not make it true in real life. Secondly, each time you go back and change something to the original timeline you are creating a new timeline that compensates for the new information. Thirdly, in the past on a timeline all events in the quantum and macro world would have already happened, it is like a recording (but one you can edit). So the very fact of you knowing what happens does not change anything, the only thing that would change something would be if you went in and stopped yourself from conducting the experiment or altered it in some way it was not before. All this is of course IMHO and according to theory.

Finally, about your spatial navigation issue; since space and time are connected, hence spacetime you should move back to the previous location in space, as well time. If for some reason you can not, then a navigation system (if you have a time machine then a navy system should not be a huge issue) could make the nessicary corrections.

[edit on 8/9/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:03 PM
Since linear time is an illusion and everything is happening simultaneously when you are outside of the 3rd dimension (the Maya or Veil as it is sometimes called), there IS a way to time travel, but not in the way you are thinking of it.

You can affect the past by bypassing 3D time and communicating with your "past" self and giving it information that will help it make a different decision, altering that probable reality and kicking you into a different one. The Universe is multidimensional and you can choose which probable reality you want to focus on.

The easier way to utilize this ability is from the other direction -- listen very closely when you are faced with a choice. Discern from all of the mental images and clutter what your "future" self is trying to tell you about the choice. It knows. It's been through it. It is now thinking about you as its "past" self and trying to convey the information, although it may not even know it is. To it, it is a mental statement of, "Thinking back on it now, I really wish I would (or wouldn't) have ... "

So ... the question becomes: Can you hear that? Can you discern it? Can you sort it out from all of the the other mental clutter? Give it a try. Time travel by listening to your future self.

-- Donn

Do you know Who, In Fact, You Really Are?

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by postmeme
@OP,

So if you slow yourself down a lot relative to the rotating universe, you travel backwards in time too?

Maybe that's what happens in spontaneous combustions when they can't take the heat.

I guess Superman was right...

No not quite. At least not according to the theory. Speed has nothing to do with going back in time. In order to do that you must be able to find or build a worm whole and loop it on itself which loops the universe on itself. Doing so creates a loop in space and in time. That loop in time would allow you to to travel to any time you want within that loop. Theoretically speaking anyway.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by tauristercus
Amazing how ideas just seem to come out of nowhere when you get stuck into the possibilities of time travel !

I'm still certain nature forbids it (time travel, that is) but just in case I'm wrong ....

A couple of posts back I conjectured that maybe the laws of conservation of mass & energy may not have been completely defined and that we may have been unintentionally using a "cut down" version without realising it.

I basically wondered if mass/energy conservation should be modified from approximately the following:

"Within a closed system, that the total mass/energy content of the system cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space"

to a slightly modified form as follows:

"Within a closed system, that the total mass/energy of the system cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and time"

Is there any reason why this "slight modification" couldn't be valid as the underlying law that we're familiar with and were taught in science class would simply become a "subset" of the "modified" version but still be perfectly valid and useable?

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.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:53 PM

Originally posted by spacebot

Only thing we have to do is build a workspace where the proposed conditions are met to test the theory with the infinite cylinder and the orbiting object around it and find a way to measure the signs of time dilation.
Also a safe way to reproduce this event every time.

The problem with what was proposed though, is how do you plan on getting your hands on an infinitely long cylinder. A cylinder that goes on for ever. It never ends. While it seems to work on paper we will never be able to test it because we just cannot build such an object and there is none in nature that I am aware of.

Unless, you go into what was proposed about 10 years after that which is that the universe, if it is spinning could act as that cylinder. Although this idea proposed that if the universe is spinning then it should naturally create worm holes for us to loop...

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:04 PM

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.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 02:09 PM
Originally posted by tinfoilman

Okay, first a dumb question, but I'd still like to hear the responses because the image in my head is neat.

If the faster you go the more massive your ship becomes then, assuming you could hit the speed of light before running out fuel, then wouldn't the fuel tanks continue to gain more mass as well? Once reaching the speed of light, if your mass becomes infinite then wouldn't your fuel supply also have reached infinite mass and therefore also be infinite?

Good question. Truth be told I have not thought of that before. I think though what would happen. is yes the gas tank and the gas within would expand but the entire ship would be expanding with it equally so it would still be using the same amount of gas... No endless fuel supply. good thinking though. I like that.

Another question. From what I know about the theory of relativity. I may be wrong about this, but isn't it true that according to the theory of relativity if I'm moving away from you at 10 miles per hour then that, according to the theory, is also mathmatically equivalent and is the same as you moving away from me at 10 miles per hour?

In other words mathmatically, if I'm moving away from you it's exactly the same as if you were moving from me. How come only the person that gets on the spaceship stays young and the person on the planet gets old?

Well it depends on who is moving away and who is not. If both of you moved away at the speed of light you would both experience the same time dilation. IF only one of you moves away at the speed of light then only one will have time slow down for them or really stretched out for them.

Let me also try to explain something about how time works when going the speed of light.

In this link is a picture of a ruler. ( I put it in a link because the picture is to large for this forum)

becauseican.co.za...

As you can see it measure up to 10 inches. Let us say that the distance from 1 to 5 is one year. In other words, standing on the earth going about your daily life it takes one year to get from point one to point 5.

Now let us say you have just taken off at the speed of light. Because time expands for you the one year mark has now been stretced for you to point 10. After 6 months of traveling at the speed of light you decide you are done and you come down for a landing on earth. ( keep in mind the "earth time" has not changed) you have been gone for 6 months your time, so you land right where the 5 is ( half a year of your time) but it is still a full year for the people who remained on earth. You have just went 6 months into the future.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by gimme_some_truth]

new topics

top topics

163