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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ir0nM0nkey

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.

Light like time is still bent by mass.




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
time travel to the future IS POSSIBLE!!! it is a fact, I wont get into details, google it

time travel to the past I BELIEVE it is IMPOSSIBLE ... because you would change the future and that doesnt make any sense if we are UNIQUE, but here are some bullet points:

- it would mean that we are a computer system and just an AI ... since you would have multiple copies of you being created at EVERY single moment that someone or something changed their state

- it would mean that there are probably a universal database, that the universe uses to create another one at every time somebody goes back in time, since when you do that, you would CHANGE the timeline, JUST FOR THE FACT YOU ARE IN IT, it doesnt matter if you interfere intentionally or not, just you being there will cause something, it is pretty obvious

- to not believe that, only if you think that we all have objectives in life and it will always happen no matter what, but even then, you would need multiple copies, and that would mean we are just AI too (or it would mean that we generate a new copy at every moment possible and our copy exists forever ...)


plus - even if there is not time travel to the past, I believe we live in a virtual world, we are just information, and we perceive things that the system wants us to perceive, this last part if obvious

plus2 - living in a virtual world, it doesnt mean we are AI, we may have something outside just connected to this world ...

plus3 - we all know we see what the universe wants us to see, we feel what we are told to feel, so it is not that hard to imagine a virtual system

plus4 - in a few years(40-50), we will be able to simulate our universe the way it is, or at least the human brain, and when we do that, we wont be able to distinguish a computer from a person if we dont see it ...



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 



Time does exist


Sure, if you subscribe to an archaic, nearly century year old model of the universe that has consistently been *observably* proven false.

Or do you prefer the original conception of time developed by ancient man over six thousand years ago?


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


Sure, I pointed out one article of many others. If you don't like searching with google, then you can try Yahoo! or Microsoft's new toy, bing.


discovermagazine.com...


What is interesting is that the method of travel calls for something kind of similar to what you describe, a warp in space time, although the phenomena for how the warp is achieved is slightly different. In the example provided in the article, it calls for black holes. Unfortunately such things are physically impossible and violate both GR and SR, but that simple fact is just willy nilly dismissed by most astrophysicist's because black holes are useful to explain angular momentum in galaxies. Not surprisingly, a simpler explanation does indeed exist and is reproducible in the lab using plasma physics that does explan angular momentum in galaxies to a 'T'.


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.


An atomic clock does not measure time at all. Atomic clocks measure the rate of oscillation in the atom being measured. In other words, you count 1+ for every measure.

There is not a single device ever invented on this planet that actually measures time.


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


Good theory by who's standards? Do you equate the necessary requirement to invent unfalsifiable and unobservable thing's as constituting a 'good theory'?


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


As I mentioned earlier, the expansion hypothesis is based solely upon an assumption, an unproven one at that and one that has been utterly defied by observations of quasars. This assumption in order to be correct must by nature and physical law apply to all things in the universe. Quasars are not observed to have any time dilation and nor do their apparent redshift match their apparent brightness leading to many false calculations as to their true distances. There is no other means of determining an expanding universe other than this assumption of redshift.


Sorry it took some TIME to get those links.


If you say so. Personally I say it took a series of sequential events starting from when you first read my post and ending when you posted your reply. We can measure this series of sequential events against the rotation of the Earth around the sun (another sequential/cyclical event) and call it "time" if it really helps you sleep at night.

Your ignoring that QR/GR being reconciled show that time does not exist at all. Your ignoring that all attempts to measure time at the plank scale show that time does not exist; And perhaps, the worst is that your naively calling a series of events a measure of time. Do you also think things are hot/cold because they are hot/cold?



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Like I said if you can't see the genius in Einstein's theories then it would be of no use to try and refute mine with you.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Sure, if you subscribe to an archaic, nearly century year old model of the universe that has consistently been *observably* proven false.


And consistently proven right.


Or do you prefer the original conception of time developed by ancient man over six thousand years ago?


Time is time whether it be described as a river or arrow.



What is interesting is that the method of travel calls for something kind of similar to what you describe, a warp in space time, although the phenomena for how the warp is achieved is slightly different. In the example provided in the article, it calls for black holes. Unfortunately such things are physically impossible and violate both GR and SR, but that simple fact is just willy nilly dismissed by most astrophysicist's because black holes are useful to explain angular momentum in galaxies. Not surprisingly, a simpler explanation does indeed exist and is reproducible in the lab using plasma physics that does explain angular momentum in galaxies to a 'T'.


Now you are telling me that an object can't have an energy density equal to infinity is impossible? But that is in accordance with Einstein's theories oh wait a moment you don't believe those now.



An atomic clock does not measure time at all. Atomic clocks measure the rate of oscillation in the atom being measured. In other words, you count 1+ for every measure. There is not a single device ever invented on this planet that actually measures time.


Atomic clocks measure precise increments of duration. They measure how long something lasts. Or how much time it has been since said object was changed in anyway.




Good theory by who's standards? Do you equate the necessary requirement to invent unfalsifiable and unobservable thing's as constituting a 'good theory'?


I determine how "good" a theory is by how it helps understand the universe and by how logical it is. I also use the research on the theory to help me understand the theory.



As I mentioned earlier, the expansion hypothesis is based solely upon an assumption, an unproven one at that and one that has been utterly defied by observations of quasars. This assumption in order to be correct must by nature and physical law apply to all things in the universe. Quasars are not observed to have any time dilation and nor do their apparent redshift match their apparent brightness leading to many false calculations as to their true distances. There is no other means of determining an expanding universe other than this assumption of redshift.


Then please tell me why is that redshift there?




Your ignoring that QR/GR being reconciled show that time does not exist at all. Your ignoring that all attempts to measure time at the plank scale show that time does not exist; And perhaps, the worst is that your naively calling a series of events a measure of time.


Of course if a motion was instantaneous then it would be void of time. Wait that would mean time has to actually exist for an event to occur unless said event was instantaneous.


Do you also think things are hot/cold because they are hot/cold?
No



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


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.


I don't know, maybe something you ate?

Anyway, magnetic fields act perpendicular to the direction of travel for an electron. The electrostatic repulsion between electrons is from memory 10^36 greater than the gravitational attraction.

Your 'answer' didn't really answer anything.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 



Like I said if you can't see the genius in Einstein's theories then it would be of no use to try and refute mine with you.


RFLMAO!

Now your claiming to be a genius on par with Einstein? Man your an arrogant pompous ass.


And consistently proven right.


By falsely fudging results and inventing unfalsifiable unobserved entities.


Time is time whether it be described as a river or arrow.


Yes, I get it; You would rather hang onto an archaic, nearly century old model of the universe rather than try to even bother to understand what the new discoveries are showing us.


Now you are telling me that an object can't have an energy density equal to infinity is impossible? But that is in accordance with Einstein's theories oh wait a moment you don't believe those now.


Actually, if you knew anything at all about the two people you name drop in your cute little pdf there, you would know that neither of them believed black holes to be possible and neither of them thought their equations showed such a ridiculous object. Goto google and search this "black holes don't exist", an ATS thread will pop up showing another members research on this along with links to all the relevant papers.


Atomic clocks measure precise increments of duration. They measure how long something lasts. Or how much time it has been since said object was changed in anyway.


Clearly you don't know how atomic clocks work. If you don't know anything, then google is a very useful tool to look up information in which to learn something.


I determine how "good" a theory is by how it helps understand the universe and by how logical it is. I also use the research on the theory to help me understand the theory.


So, you *DO* think that fudging numbers to get new numbers and inventing unfalsifiable and unobserved entities is what constitutes a 'good theory'. I appreciate your admittance to such. Now how about you let real people deal with the science of reality and you can keep playing with the physics of fantasy.


Then please tell me why is that redshift there?


Please tell me the distance of a single star that has been physically measured and shown to be accurately correlated to it's determined distance by redshift.


Of course if a motion was instantaneous then it would be void of time. Wait that would mean time has to actually exist for an event to occur unless said event was instantaneous.


Great, so now you wish to dismiss the laws of motion and call it science. There is nothing in physics that says objects require 'time' in which to move through space.

You can make up all the BS you want, at the end of the day, it's still BS.


No


Your either lying or you don't understand enough about physics or how the mind works. Please point me to the source of time, what makes time itself work.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Hei Abdulla. So sorry but i cant seem to see the thread
hope it comes up soon
Would love to see it



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 

Now your claiming to be a genius on par with Einstein? Man your an arrogant pompous ass.


Try to be gentle with him - he is still a child I believe.

And don't forget that he mentioned he didn't want any Einstein bashing in the OP.

[edit on 15/6/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 


Eh where is the theory? the pdf? link? where is the stuff about time travel???



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 



Try to be gentle with him - he is still a child I believe.


I know, he's a 13 year old who pretends to be friends with John Hutchison. I already called him out on that in U2U and he admitted it was BS. He's an arrogant pompous ass making up thing's as he goes. !3 or 50 doesn't change his attitude towards this subject.


And don't forget that he mentioned he didn't want any Einstein bashing in the OP.


I could care less, really. He also U2U'd me asking me to discuss this privately rather than in this thread. Originally he asked me to not discuss this at all with anyone else on ATS. Now that the subject is open to public debate, he has to deal with me publicly debating it. If the subject involves faulty science and assumed facts without evidences, then I am going to point them out regardless of the origination of said faulty science. In this case, it happens to be Einstein. This is something he is going to have to learn to deal with. You publicly post something, you deal with all opinions, like it or not and there is no rule against posting a differing point of view.

If anyone else has a problem, I can link you to a site selling a build a bridge kit.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


If you can ask anyone that I u2u'd I asked them all for the same agreement because I didn't want the information disclosed.(and when I say information I mean the information considering the time machine)
Just don't want my words being twisted.

When I said that it would be pointless to debate with you because you can't see the genius in Einstein's theories. I am nothing compared to Einstein so what makes me think you will believe mine if you don't believe his?

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   


Actually, if you knew anything at all about the two people you name drop in your cute little pdf there, you would know that neither of them believed black holes to be possible and neither of them thought their equations showed such a ridiculous object. Goto google and search this "black holes don't exist", an ATS thread will pop up showing another members research on this along with links to all the relevant papers.


I am well aware of how Einstein said that black holes don't exist. But if you use his mass and energy bending spacetime part of his theory it becomes clear that an object that is being compressed would warp spacetime as it got smaller. Then if the object was big enough could create an infinite energy density. It's not our fault Einstein didn't realize it. It still goes in accordance with his theories.

Schwarzschild I was not aware he had said black holes didn't exist, as he was the one who formulated the Schwarzschild equation.

(The equation to find how much an object has to be compressed to reach its Schwarzschild radius. Schwarzschild radius the size an object has to be compressed on all sides to become a black hole.)

Can you point me to where he says this?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic
 


Not gravitational attraction magnetic attraction. These electrons are moving, the nanotubes are arranged in a way in which the electrons are attracted to one another. So they move as a whole layer. The layer itself is repelled by the power of the magnets magnetic fields. The magnets themselves are moved by a pushing process. Causing this layer to be moving at high speeds.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   


I know, he's a 13 year old who pretends to be friends with John Hutchison. I already called him out on that in U2U and he admitted it was BS. He's an arrogant pompous ass making up thing's as he goes. !3 or 50 doesn't change his attitude towards this subject.


I can give you proof. You are most likely not going to believe it.

I never admitted anything I never agreed with what you said. Apparently you thought this was a perpetual motion machine. You yourself told me to create a thread and watch how quickly it was shot down. The only people who don't agree with me have been you and LightFantastic. I knew you would try and shoot it down as soon as you came. Nobody else here has mistaken this as a perpetual motion machine.

And can you please refrain from name calling.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I would like to mention that anyone who would like to see the information that used to be on here can just u2u me.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   


And we also took some pictures would you like to see those as well?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I neither agree nor disagree with the theory at this stage but I am willing to offer the benefit of the doubt.

However I would like to point out that if such a device were to become operational, providing proof of its time travelling capabilities would be impossible considering (as you previously mentioned) you don't actually know what it is your supposed to be looking for in terms of a measurable result.

Remain Vigilant


[edit on 15/6/10 by bonsaisert]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bonsaisert
 

Thats the part I am currently thinking about. It would be foolish for us to go in. We might be able to send a camera. I guess we could do the photon thing, it would still take a long time to find out and we don't know if its going to the past or the future.


But we could make it like a portal (which I also previously stated) and see if there was a difference in the portal than our surroundings.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Gentill Abdulla]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 



Can you point me to where he says this?


Rather than re-hashing everything said about this subject, here is a link to a very well researched thread on black holes. It even includes a link to a paper written by Schwarzschild that refutes black holes.

I understand that real thing's are not taught in school anymore and this is why I keep telling you look the damn stuff up. I even provide search terms. Great, I get that they refute what your trying to do and you possibly don't want to accept the newer discoveries because you are learning that the older more archaic science is some how a set in stone fact. I get it, the teacher seems smart, but guess what, he's a blubbering idiot and is only as smart as the curriculum makes you smart when you graduate. Unless he is teaching you current science and new discoveries as they are made this past two years, then you aren't learning anything bu re-hashed garbage.

[edit]

Whoops! Forgot the link, sorry about that! Link

There is also a link at the beginning of the thread about the whole expanding space mess if you really want to learn thing's they don't teach you in school!



Not gravitational attraction magnetic attraction. These electrons are moving, the nanotubes are arranged in a way in which the electrons are attracted to one another. So they move as a whole layer. The layer itself is repelled by the power of the magnets magnetic fields. The magnets themselves are moved by a pushing process. Causing this layer to be moving at high speeds.


Your missing a point he is trying to make. Your claiming your device is intended to warp space, which requires you to generate a large gravitational field to facilitate that warping. as he pointed out:


The electrostatic repulsion between electrons is from memory 10^36 greater than the gravitational attraction.


You really don't understand what he is saying there? How can you begin to build a device to warp space (of all places, on the planet, good idea!) if you can't grasp a simple fact?


I can give you proof. You are most likely not going to believe it.


I'll readily accept a picture of the two of you with his name and your ATS name.


Apparently you thought this was a perpetual motion machine.


Yep, and the way you personally described it to me did indeed sound like some weird attempt at doing nothing more than pumping energy around back and forth perpetually. This more clearer description still doesn't look like it would work at all, I see no means of energy input being greater than the contained energy of the universe in which to reverse entropy to facilitate time travel.


I knew you would try and shoot it down as soon as you came.


Yet you went ahead knowing I would most likely show up and then decide to try and ask me to not discuss it publicly when you open it up to public discussion.


And can you please refrain from name calling.


Sure; Can you also stop dismissing new discoveries and observations that falsify archaic nearly century year old physics?


And we also took some pictures would you like to see those as well?


OH YAY! I was hoping I would see a youtube video of some kids playing basketball! TYTYTY!




[edit on 15-6-2010 by sirnex]







 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join