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.

# Plausible Time Travel Process

page: 2
11
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Segfault Bug
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?

it's just a variation of mass per unit volume. Density. I guess I messed up on there. Good Call!Star for you!

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

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

Hi Gentill

There are a lot of problems with your paper that I see. Lets get over them one at a time.

1. How do you pump more electrons into your electron 'mass' when the potential of your electron source will be much lower than the 'mass'. The 'mass' will repel the source electrons strongly. See the work of Coulomb.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:46 PM

Originally posted by LightFantastic
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

Hi Gentill

There are a lot of problems with your paper that I see. Lets get over them one at a time.

1. How do you pump more electrons into your electron 'mass' when the potential of your electron source will be much lower than the 'mass'. The 'mass' will repel the source electrons strongly. See the work of Coulomb.

Electrons flow through the tube because of the sunlight and the are also released because of the sunlight. As electrons move they become small magnets. Due to the arrangement of the nanotubes when the electrons flow they repel the magnetic field created by the magnet. And start to move more with the magnetic fields. They also attract each other. This creates an attraction force that can pull electrons off of the orbits of the atoms from the sides of the nanotube. Thus increasing mass and bend on spacetime.

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

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:27 PM

Why do I get a feeling that that was the only problem you could find? You said you had found a lot. Just write them all down at once and then I'll answer it as best I can.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:18 PM
When can we here at ATS expect to see a practically applicable prototype that employs the work in your thesis?

How large would the apparatus ideally be?

How expensive would this be?

Is it dangerous?

-bonsaisert

[edit on 14/6/10 by bonsaisert]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:25 PM

Originally posted by bonsaisert
When can we here at ATS expect to see a practically applicable prototype that employs the work in your thesis?

Me and a friend of mine, John Hutchison, are gonna be building this over the summer, so expect to see a prototype around next month. We are going to make a small version. I'll see what we can do. I'll post about it here on this thread.

How large would the apparatus ideally be?

However big you want the portal to be.

How expensive would this be?

I don't know how much. But it depends on the carbon nanotubes mostly.

Is it dangerous?

Only if you stand on the side for a long period of time. Otherwise its harmless.

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

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:39 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

The John Hutchison?

I think I've seen him in a few documentaries if it is the same man.

How exactly would you test such a device?

For example, If you turn the machine on on a Monday, wait until
Tuesday and send say a packet of photons back to the moment you first switched the device on, then surely the result of the experiment would exist only in your memory of turning the machine on on Monday and all of a sudden receiving the packet of photons? I hope that makes sense...

P.S I wish you guys the best of luck

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:41 PM
surely time doesnt exist, only now exists, and now, now now and now, u know wot i mean

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by bonsaisert
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

The John Hutchison?

I think I've seen him in a few documentaries if it is the same man.

How exactly would you test such a device?

For example, If you turn the machine on on a Monday, wait until
Tuesday and send say a packet of photons back to the moment you first switched the device on, then surely the result of the experiment would exist only in your memory of turning the machine on on Monday and all of a sudden receiving the packet of photons? I hope that makes sense...

P.S I wish you guys the best of luck

Yeah I got his email phone number and he even came to my house once.

We were gonna send something through and see what happened. But it's still a portal so we could see a different image of whats happening in front of us than the background.

Thanks

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by thegreatestone
surely time doesnt exist, only now exists, and now, now now and now, u know wot i mean

We'll see. But if time does exist then this experiment will allow backwards time travel.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Explain sirnex( I was wondering when you would show up)

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

I have and I still don't see how it will work, it defies physics.

I understand the concept of "What if time existed", but exclaiming being able to do something based on a 'what if X existed' is a pointless exercise. X in this case being time has already been proven to *not* exist and to *never* have been measured once. There is no fourth dimension of temporal travel as Einstein had postulated and you need to understand that his postulation on such is an unproven theory, not a set in stone fact.

There is not a single device that measures any fundamental force or flow of time and all attempts to reconcile QR with GR lead to showing that time does not exist. Time is nothing more than a mental construct in the same sense that temperature is a mental construct used to make sense of the world around us.

You have many problems with your idea and I've pointed out a few of them, but after seeing your pdf there I now understand it a little more and I'm even more dead set on the idea that it just won't work at all. Even if time did exist as a fourth dimension of temporal travel.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:33 PM

Even though I do remember what you said I still don't agree with it.
You were one of only 3 people that didn't agree with me. Just so you know.

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

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

Well, good for the other two people I suppose. All I can say is that you all need to keep up with current discoveries and knowledge rather than wishing really hard that archaic knowledge is still valid.

Time does not exist and you can not violate physics, simple as that, not sure what else I can tell you. Entropy rules all and no amount of magnets and meta-materials is going to violate entropy; Sorry.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:41 PM

Like I told you last time we just have to wait and see until the building is finished.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:44 PM

You know I'm just throwing this out there but Einstein's theory of relativity accurately predicts gravity, the expansion of the universe, and effects near the speed of light, etc. etc. So if it includes a spacetime continuum being there then what do you think is preventing it from actually being there?

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

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:48 PM
well done G.Abdulla!

very interesting!
Impressive mind you've got there.
but just wanted to give thanks before the thread gets too huge. lol
so thanks!!

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:50 PM

On the other hand where is everyone? A lot of the regulars aren't here right now.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:10 PM

Originally posted by thegreatestone
surely time doesnt exist, only now exists, and now, now now and now, u know wot i mean

I agree - I see 'time' like a beam of light travelling through darkness.

What I mean is that 'time' exists only at the tip of the moving light - there is no 'time' before, nor does 'time' exist in front of the 'tip'.

Time is in the instance.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:10 PM
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla

You know I'm just throwing this out there but

*Sigh* There's always a 'but'.

Einstein's theory of relativity

Is interesting and archaic. One needs to keep abreast of current discoveries, not dwell upon archaic theories.

accurately predicts gravity

Far from it, this is why we have a problem with the amount of observed mass in the universe compared to what Einstein predicted should be there. This has led to numerous unfalsifiable and unobserved inventions to explain it away.

the expansion of the universe

What expansion? There is no concrete evidence of the universe expanding at all. The whole expansion mess is solely derived upon and assumption being true, not any observed and proven facts.

and effects near the speed of light

What effects? Time dilation? Ah, but you see, new discoveries are showing time dilation to not exist and that the whole assumption thing I mentioned a second ago, the one used to assume an expansion of the universe, is beginning to be discovered as not existing. Which also ties into the whole 'problem with time' thing.

So if it includes a spacetime continuum being there then what do you think is preventing it from actually being there?

Hop on google and look up these two search terms.

The problem with time.
Time does not exist.

Read any and all relevant *new* discoveries you see in the links rather than relying upon a nearly century old model of the universe derived from nearly a century old knowledge of physics and observations.

Kthxbai.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:35 PM

Originally posted by sirnex
The problem with time.
Time does not exist.

Read any and all relevant *new* discoveries you see in the links rather than relying upon a nearly century old model of the universe derived from nearly a century old knowledge of physics and observations.

Kthxbai.

Time does exist

You pointed me to an article in 2007 here is something for you

discovermagazine.com...

Atomic clocks are shown to age slower
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Though it doesn't prove it without a doubt we are in Einstein's favor there.

General Relativity is still used. They use it because it is a good theory and...www.physorg.com...

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
discovermagazine.com...

Sorry it took some TIME to get those links.

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

new topics

top topics

11