13 Year old boy has Time Machine plan that works

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
There are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to start...

1. Do a quick Google search on Gentill Abdulla and you'll quickly see that he is a "self-proclaimed genius"... There are no actual physicists that backs him up on his ideas.
2. Looking at some of his interactions on discussion boards such as this one you'll find that he's missing a few concepts about science and he also have a few misconceptions when it comes to the stuff he actually knows something about.
3. His theory is full of holes, such as mentioned above. Surely he must give an explanation as to why he wants to use blue light. And why it has to be 1,000 years old. Why not 999 years. Or 1,001? (And good luck finding a light source like that.)
4. The idea that black holes = time travel is popular science fiction.

And so on...

The bottom line is that it's a young boy with make-believe ideas. Which is a good thing. Some of our greatest minds began their best work at young ages. At this point our friend theory is a far fetched fantasy.

On a side note, a diagram to help explain his theory...



If you look carefully , Gem, the OP has the blue beam of light in his avatar. Like the one the boy is postulating as his source of light.
If that's something synching up then so be it, but it strikes me as if it could be that the OP is having a laugh.
And where WOULD that come from ? A blue beam having travelled that far?
Silly.




posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Dear: Writer

As a scientist; I find it interesting that a 13 year old boy is describing making void magnetic space (I for one would like to know where he obtained this information). Secondly, the way in which he describes the building of the structure; would in fact create a dual torus torsion magnetic field (also known as a blackhole). Thirdly, I also understand his concept of projecting light through the middle of this void magnetic field (so you could travel on the accelerated photons at near light speed) not sure why it has to be blue? And like others; I am concerned about this plastic magnet? In all my years as a scientist I have never seen a plastic magnet. His idea of creating a blackhole to travel through I could buy into, if it were not for the fact that the other end of the blackhole (or opposite side of the torus opening) would end up where exactly? Then I would like to ask this child, “How he would deal with the graviton emission that would obviously escape from the event horizon”? And last question I would have is “What kind of power source do you imagine that this machine would take to start the ball rolling”?

Although it is an interesting concept and one that has fueled Science Fiction for years; I believe there is a much more plausible way of traveling not only through time; but the vast quantum of space as well.

Sincerely

TheGhost



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73

Originally posted by constantwonder
Hmmm

there is a ton of evidence that it is possible which is why serious physicist entertain the idea.


Looks like you are confusing ideas with evidence. -5



And i do enjoy endusing seizures in small minded folks aswell, thanks for noticing my great avatar. . .

[edit on 19-1-2010 by constantwonder]


You cant even spell inducing correctly and call me small minded. I am so small minded that I disappeared your profile picture from my screen .06 seconds after I mentioned it being annoying.

It's like I traveled back in time and prevented you from putting it up.

So genius, if time travel is possible, and time is infinite, where are the time travelers from the future?

They dont exist because time travel is impossible. Most people like you confuse Back To The Future "type" time travel with what is actually space travel or traveling faster than light.

Bending light wont bend time or enable you to travel through it. Otherwise gravitational lenses would be time portals, and so would every other clump of matter.

You have failed to even prove time exists let alone the ability to travel in it. Time is a one way street. No matter what you do to light.




yes lets get take spelling into account . . . . seriously are you that insecure in your own knowledge that you feel you need to point out spelling errors. . . shows some real genious mate

How then do you explain the time dilation experienced by satellites?

If enough mas were present to bend space into a loop then an object could act as a time machine.

E=mc2 remeber mass and energy are interchangable . . . . so if something with large amount of energy like a vortex of light could bend spacetime in the same way as a massive object.

Yes my back to the future confusion sure is narrowing my knowledge band. . . i love that flux capacitor.

Narrow minded people like you refuse to believe anything. The physics and the math both allow for time travel in both directions.

Frame dragging is the only requirement and as Tipler showed frame dragging can be achieved with the Tipler Cylinder. Ron Mallett is using frame dragging based on the fact that light can bend space time in the same way mass does. . . . remember e=mc2

And just for future reference statements about someones intellegence based on their spelling abilitr or lack there of shows just how brilliant you really are. If you want to debate then debate keep the personal insults out of it.

Oh and maybe just maybe this guy is a real time traveler


Consider a trip into the future, made commonplace in our world of space travel. As pointed out by J. Richard Gott in his book Time Travel in Einstein's Universe, the Russian cosmonaut Sergei Avdeyev orbited Earth slowly relative to the speed of light but still, traveling a total of 748 days at those speeds: he's about 1/50th of a second younger than he would have been if he had stayed home. He found Earth 1/50th of a second in the future from where he expected to find it. He experienced the future.

Had Avdeyev traveled at 99.995 % of the speed of light, says Gott, to a star about 500 light years away and back, he would have returned to an Earth 1000 years in the future and he only ten years older. He would live in the future from then on.



www.wonderquest.com...

there you are friend a fully certified time traveler. . . now if you want to continue your beligerant tirade please do so without insulting other members

[edit on 19-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I am in the middle of a game, so I do not got time to explain to a simpleton that time is real. If you are not completely slow in the head, what you are trying to get to is time relative and not real.

I am just not interested in arguing real and relative because they are not opposites.

IF you are saying time is the opposite of real... fake, imaginary, fair tail, a lie etc. I will just put you on my ignore list right now.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
No probs doc il just park the delorian over here and ride that beam of blue light into the past what a joke




posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


E=mc2 remeber mass and energy are interchangable

I would like for you to show me the mathematical equation that proves this theory? And please show me where in Einstein's equation does the concept of entropy play into his forthcoming hypothesis. For if the above equation where true in all Fields of Motion then my friend you would cease to exist. I would simply point out the constant motion of the electrons on the outer event horizon of the nucleus of an atom at near light speed as an example.

You might want to do a bit of research before spouting off about others works that you obviously do not understand.

Sincerely

TheGhost



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sunspot0
 


I've done research in this as well. What he explains will work. The question is will it work as he explained.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Time travel on a molecular level has already occurred and time travel for space tavel appliction (IE, warp), is expected to be possible within this century.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Another misleading title.


This plan actually works? Where's this evidence? Has anyone actually tested this, built a machine and experienced time travel? No, they haven't. So how can someone claim that this is a "time machine plan that works"?

There's no evidence of anything working here, just some kids theory.



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Time travel on a molecular level has already occurred and time travel for space tavel appliction (IE, warp), is expected to be possible within this century.

Please site the informational location for this statement; as a Molecular Physicist I have never read this in any peer reviewed journal.

Sincerely

TheGhost



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Time travel on a molecular level has already occurred and time travel for space tavel appliction (IE, warp), is expected to be possible within this century.

Please site the informational location for this statement; as a Molecular Physicist I have never read this in any peer reviewed journal.

Sincerely

TheGhost


You sure like to point out that your a physicist don't you. . .

can you please site where you have obtained your information?



[edit on 19-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I have to say “I wish that the field of science worked like this website!” as you can make broad sweeping statements; while never putting forward one shred of evidence to prove your theories. If I can make a suggestion to the contributors of this thread, please stop making blatant theoretical statements without sighting actual evidence. It is obvious that the child who came up with this concept of a time machine; has in fact not built the object in question. Therefore, you can only put forth a hypothesis as to whether or not it is possible; nothing more nothing less.

Question #1: Is time travel Possible?
Answer: Theoretically Yes.
I would sight Carl Sagan as a source (Read any of his works on this subject).

Question #2: Does the machine he describes sound plausible?
Answer: If it were not for the 999 year old beam of blue light and use of a plastic magnet; Yes

Question #3: Has the device been built?
Answer: No (if it has I would love to see it)

Question #4: Does the inventor show a mathematical equation to prove his theory?
Answer: No (if he did this work I would also love to see it)

Question #5: Is the theory set forth in the concept original?
Answer: No
(I would sight Physicists Thibault Damour of the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques in Bures-sur-Yvette, France, and Sergey Solodukhin of International University Bremen in Germany read any of their work on wormholes and you would see this is not original thought.)

I would end with; I love the kid’s imagination and I hope he stays interested in science; sounds to me like he has a long road ahead of him.

Sincerely

TheGhost



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
OK... um... I've known how to build a time machine since I was 15 years old...
that was 20 years ago.... all based on a few issues of Discover magazine...


Entangled beryllium atoms.... take one atom and dislocate it in time using a particle accelerator.... then run some quantum / zeno effect test on them (excited states effected by the timing/period of observation)....

Yeah, technically its just sending information back in time.... good enough for now.
It also allows for instantaneous communicators.... of course none of this is feasible
for private use... but in the right hands... being able to answer 3 YES/NO questions
1 year in advance can be worth millions.... or dollars or lives.

maybe I will expand upon this in my blog one day....

serinx.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
@ molecularPhd

How do you know there would be an obvious emission of the unproven graviton from the event horizon?

Surely as a physicist you don't go spouting off about unproven hypothesis as if they are fact. . .

And what exactly is a void magnetic feild. . .

As for the plastic magnet im sure he means a plastic magnet. . . but not like a plastic bottle type plastic



plastic magnet is a non-metallic magnet made from an organic polymer. One example is PANiCNQ, which is a combination of emeraldine-based polyaniline (PANi) and tetracyanoquinodimethane (TCNQ). When it was created by researchers at the University of Durham in 2004 it was the first magnetic polymer to function at room temperature.

PANi is a conductive polymer that is stable in air. When combined with the free radical forming TCNQ as an acceptor molecule it can mimic the mechanism of metallic magnets. The magnetic properties arise from the fully pi-conjugated nitrogen-containing backbone combined with molecular charge transfer side groups. These properties cause the molecule to have a high density of localised spins that can give rise to coupling of their magnetic fields. When a polymer magnet is synthesized, the polymer chains need a long time to line up before displaying any notable magnetism.




en.wikipedia.org...

Surely a physicist of your caliber already knew that though, right?







[edit on 19-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


I would love too.

I hold dual PhD’s, one in Molecular Physics, and the other in Material Engineering both of which are from MIT.

Would you like to site where you get your information from?

Sincerely

TheGhost



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by constantwonder
 


I would love too.

I hold dual PhD’s, one in Molecular Physics, and the other in Material Engineering both of which are from MIT.

Would you like to site where you get your information from?

Sincerely

TheGhost


Please just answer the questions I posed you. I tire of you telling us how your a physicst with two Phds . . . .

Sure is alot of huff and puff for one who didn't even answer the question.

Since you have a PhD in Material Engineering and are so proud how come you did know in all your years as a scientist that such a thing as a "plastic magnet" did indeed exsist. . . sounds to me like something every Material Engineer would have heard



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


well, off the top of my head, starlight; most of them are at least millions of years old, easy. maybe he is thinking about training his device on a star


a quick search brought up wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...
according to this, plastic magnets, yes, there is such a thing...strangely enough, plastic magnets react to blue light


[edit on 19-1-2010 by reject]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by constantwonder
yes lets get take spelling into account . . . . seriously are you that insecure in your own knowledge that you feel you need to point out spelling errors. . . shows some real genious mate


Cry me a river. Its ok to call people small minded for whatever reason you think you had but oh my god dont point out the name-callers spelling error.

I think you just really showed who is small minded here.


If you want to debate then debate keep the personal insults out of it. If you want to continue your belligerent tirade etc etc etc


It's amazing how you think you time traveled and erased you calling me small minded to which I responded about your stupid spelling error.

Do I need to go quote it?

Do you frequently insult people and then blame them for giving back?

Are you just mad at yourself for being an atrocious speller with no quantifiable grasp on relativity?

Have you seen in this relativity theory that you keep bringing up that spacetime is usually one word? Its funny that you can claim E and m are interchangeable and completely overlook spacetime as being one and the same.

Time is simply the way we relate to space its not a thing one can travel about.

Relativity only applies when there is more than one frame of reference and it all depends which one youre observing from.

The clocks on satellites tick more slowly because the satellites are travelling faster. Mass increases as you approach c right? If the mass of every single atom in the satellites clock increases would it not tick more slowly than a clock moving at a slower velocity? If you disagree tell me where the extra mass is getting the extra energy to tick along at the same rate as an Earthbound clock.

Time is an illusion. The fact that two very accurate atomic clocks can tick differently when "set" at the same time proves this. The difference is due to mass.

Any other previously unsolved physics quandaries youd like me to tackle?



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I love how you sited PANiCNQ as a plastic; for it is not a plastic. You might want to read the website you were on a bit better. Second, it takes a lot of energy to make this material magnetic and a very long time. You would be better served by using Ceramics; which in hyper cooled states take much less energy and create much more powerful magnets.

Fictional Gravitons: Is like saying prove to me an atom exists.


The black hole event horizon is where normal matter (and forces) must exceed the speed of light in order to escape, and thus are trapped. The horizon is meaningless to a virtual particle with enough speed. In particular, a charged black hole is a source of virtual photons that can then do their usual virtual business with the rest of the universe. Once again, we don't know for sure that quantum gravity will have a description in terms of gravitons, but if it does, the same loophole will apply---gravitational attraction will be mediated by virtual gravitons, which are free to ignore a black hole event horizon.

Source

Therefore if you were to create such a black hole you would have to contend with these particles escaping; along with neutrinos and other quark like material.

Sincerely

TheGhost
 
Mod edit: external tags and link to external source added.

[edit on 20/1/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Jan, 19 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcher73

Originally posted by constantwonder
yes lets get take spelling into account . . . . seriously are you that insecure in your own knowledge that you feel you need to point out spelling errors. . . shows some real genious mate


Cry me a river. Its ok to call people small minded for whatever reason you think you had but oh my god dont point out the name-callers spelling error.

I think you just really showed who is small minded here.


If you want to debate then debate keep the personal insults out of it. If you want to continue your belligerent tirade etc etc etc


It's amazing how you think you time traveled and erased you calling me small minded to which I responded about your stupid spelling error.

Do I need to go quote it?

Do you frequently insult people and then blame them for giving back?

Are you just mad at yourself for being an atrocious speller with no quantifiable grasp on relativity?

Have you seen in this relativity theory that you keep bringing up that spacetime is usually one word? Its funny that you can claim E and m are interchangeable and completely overlook spacetime as being one and the same.

Time is simply the way we relate to space its not a thing one can travel about.

Relativity only applies when there is more than one frame of reference and it all depends which one youre observing from.

The clocks on satellites tick more slowly because the satellites are travelling faster. Mass increases as you approach c right? If the mass of every single atom in the satellites clock increases would it not tick more slowly than a clock moving at a slower velocity? If you disagree tell me where the extra mass is getting the extra energy to tick along at the same rate as an Earthbound clock.

Time is an illusion. The fact that two very accurate atomic clocks can tick differently when "set" at the same time proves this. The difference is due to mass.

Any other previously unsolved physics quandaries youd like me to tackle?


Hmmm i belive i said small minded folks, im sorry if you place yourself in that category. . . .





new topics
 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join