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.

 

Plausible Time Travel Process

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Well I think that's been long enough.
Sorry if you didn't see this thread, I only wanted this to be seen for a short amount of time. If I choose to show it again I will post it at the end of this.Have a nice day.
Oh and Sirnex I never expected you to believe me. I mean if you can't see the genius in Einstein's theories what chance do I have?


[edit on 14-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Is this the same theory you U2U'd me about a few weeks ago GA? I'll download the pdf!

IRM



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


Yeah I u2u'd a lot of people before I thought it was ready for a thread.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Simply fascinating

I'm going to be keeping a close eye on this thread and I look forward to reading the unfolding discourse.

Remain Vigilant



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bonsaisert
 


I don't think there is gonna be any discourse at this rate.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Am I to understand nobody has any problems with this?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Won't work.

Unnecessary Second Line.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Explain sirnex( I was wondering when you would show up)
p.s. Did you read the links?

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Has anyone read the latest issue of Scientific American?

There are few times when I truly change my perspective on things - but their new discussion of the Nature of Time was FASCINATING!

It basically said that Time is just an abstract of our thinking process - like the use of money - and when you see time as just a place holder for discussing systems relative entropy to each other - just as money is a placeholder to replace a barter system - then you realize it doesn't really exist at all.

They provided good evidence where time drops out of nearly all physics based mathematical equations since General Relativity was worked out in 1915.

So - you see - saying one will go "back" in time really makes no sense at all - because you would have to reverse the effect of entropy on all systems in the Universe back to the state you wanted to return to - a thing far too complicated for any mere mortal or machine.

Amazingly this would explaing how God could live "outside" of time - in that he can remember all previous states while being hyper intelligent enough to calculate the future positions of all states at a standard rate of entropy as well realtive to all microscopic systems.

Anyways - it certainly explains time's apparent one way arrow - a makes an easy way to understand why time related paradoxes do not appear to form in the Universe.

Definately worth a read!




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
For the sake of the thesis let's say time exists.

I would like to mention that I read that one time while I was at Kroger. But this experiment could act like a test to see if time is real. So there is that option. It Could be used to manipulate energy systems because since gravity is an everlasting force then we should be able to obtain energy from it.

Still I do believe in time. I mean Einstein's theories were used with a fabric of spacetime.(Not timespace because if you only had space then you can't move or stay still because you need time to do so and vice versa.)

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
What are the practical applications? Does the tube need to be large enough to fit inside, or is a field created around the tube? Pardon my ignorance, trying to figure it out. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by xizd1
 


Ability to travel through time, warp drives, gravity control, etc., etc.

You are not going through the tube. You are going through the gaping hole in the center of the object.It's basically a circle and the nanotubes and other objects needed are on the outside. You then travel inside it. Kind of like a stargate.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Thanks for the reply. Travel through time I understand, but how would you control how far? Is it hit or miss? That's why I asked about practical application. Would it be possible to look into time without going? Can you go forward as well? Sorry for all the stupid questions.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by xizd1]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by xizd1
Thanks for the reply. Travel through time I understand, but how would you control how far? Is it hit or miss? That's why I asked about practical application. Would it be possible to look into time without going?


Oh then that is just determined by the speed of the object because that is what is controlling the movement through time and space. Yes you could go forward as well, it just depends on which way you enter through the machine. You could see what it was like there because this is a portal.

Just so you know the questions are welcome and you have a right to know.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Could it also be used to transport objects like Star Trek? Just move them through space and not time. Or move them through time and a little to the future to make the move seem instantaneous? Or move a firetruck to where a fire is about to start?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by xizd1
Could it also be used to transport objects like Star Trek? Just move them through space and not time. Or move them through time and a little to the future to make the move seem instantaneous? Or move a firetruck to where a fire is about to start?


Yup it could be used like a stargate that transports through time.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Am I to understand nobody has any problems with this?

I'll be honest with you. Your equations don't make any sense to me...

if D stands for distance, then surely D^2 cannot be density...? Most of the equations don't even lead to the same units in both sides of them.

You have to explain how you get to those numbered equations, ether explicitly in the article or by citing references in the text.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
The possibilities are mind boggling. I'm trying to figure out what limitations there are, if any. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Segfault Bug

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Am I to understand nobody has any problems with this?

I'll be honest with you. Your equations don't make any sense to me...

if D stands for distance, then surely D^2 cannot be density...? Most of the equations don't even lead to the same units in both sides of them.

You have to explain how you get to those numbered equations, ether explicitly in the article or by citing references in the text.


D^2 is just density. It is not multiplying distance. I just wrote that because I had already wrote D for distance. I suggest you read more closely. That's not to be taken as an insult it's just that I already explain it. Where Ii list what each letter means.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla

Originally posted by Segfault Bug

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Am I to understand nobody has any problems with this?

I'll be honest with you. Your equations don't make any sense to me...

if D stands for distance, then surely D^2 cannot be density...? Most of the equations don't even lead to the same units in both sides of them.

You have to explain how you get to those numbered equations, ether explicitly in the article or by citing references in the text.


D^2 is just density. It is not multiplying distance. I just wrote that because I had already wrote D for distance. I suggest you read more closely. That's not to be taken as an insult it's just that I already explain it. Where Ii list what each letter means.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]


Ok. I read more closely, but I'm still confused on how you got to the numbered equations?

If D^2 is density (of something, like electrons), then you cannot get to density by dividing Ts (space, like volume) by the number of electrons. At least, it should be Te/Ts instead?




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join