Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:

# Time Travel into the Future with Nuclear Ship

page: 1
0

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:20 PM
Ok, lets say we have a nuclear powered space craft, so fuel will last for at least a year, or more. And lets assume the ship accelerates at 100 miles per hour every 10 seconds. Then, by my calculations, the ship would be traveling 36,000 miles per hour the first hour. After about 775 days the ship would be traveling at near light speed.

Now, I know the nuclear engine needs thrust, so lets use steam engines. I'm not sure if this is possible, but imagine if the steam was thrust in the middle of the ship which would allow you to condense the steam and reclaim the water before exiting the rear. That way you wouldn't need so much water, you could reclaim it.

I'm not sure if the human body could handle those types of G force for a year, so maybe cut in in half and make it 4 years.

Now if this was possible you could steer a loop and return to earth in the future, right?

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:28 PM
hawking even said in one of his documentaries that travel to the future is possible ..., he gave an example, you should look into it ... search on google you may find the video

lets just not start time travel to the past, thats not possible ok

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:40 PM

Time is experienced in relative terms, it passed at the same rate for people on earth, and it passed at a relatively slower rate for the spaceship compared to the people on earth. But nobody traveled through time.

True time travelling requires a shortcut through fabric of space/time, which does not occur in near speed light travel.
It would require one of the parties to leave their time frame and enter another without moving through the relative physical space itself.

For example think of the movie the time machine with HG wells. In the example he gets into his machine, does not actually move anywhere, but traveled through time. This is true time travel. If Wells gets into a spaceship and travels the stars and returns, he did not travel through time, but experienced time at a slower rate then the people on earth.

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:42 PM
it's weird that you posted this cuz just last night
I was watching a Stanton Freidman video
that was posted here on ATS.
And in it he said that he had worked
on a Nuclear Engine or some such
a while back. I'll see if I can find

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:48 PM

I think you are referring to this thread??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by ariel bender

From what I understand, the faster you go the slower people outside of the ship become. Right?

You would be traveling into the future if you made a big loop away and back to earth...

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:59 PM

it is not time travel, you are experiencing time at a slower rate than the people on earth, when you arrive back on earth you are not actually arriving at the future. Time passed normally for people on earth, although at a slower rate compared to the your rocket. Time passed for you as well, the year on your rocket took one full year of your life.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:01 AM

Originally posted by TortoiseKweek

I think you are referring to this thread??
www.abovetopsecret.com...

yea, that was it

thanks for the find.
it was in one of those videos posted
somewhere in the middle that he
talks about that nuclear engine he worked
on and he showed a pic of it in his
presentation. then said it has been built
then the project was canceled.
lol
well maybe for his part anyway

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:09 AM

Originally posted by earth2
From what I understand, the faster you go the slower people outside of the ship become. Right?

well that was the way the theory worked
in the movie "Contact" with Jodie Foster.

In her space ship, she fell right through the portal
in a matter of seconds. But the audio recorder
recorded 18 minutes of static.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:27 AM

Originally posted by ariel bender

it is not time travel, you are experiencing time at a slower rate than the people on earth, when you arrive back on earth you are not actually arriving at the future. Time passed normally for people on earth, although at a slower rate compared to the your rocket. Time passed for you as well, the year on your rocket took one full year of your life.

You're technically right, but it is still a realistic way to "travel" to the future.

Although, with your perspective in mind, what would you call a machine that created some type of force-field around it which only allowed time to pass through it in thousandths or millionths of a fraction relative to how time flowed outside of it, similar to the movie time-machine?

Would you call that a time machine, or just a "arbitrarily variable time flux inhibitor" ?

Another way to time travel would be a working form of cryogenic freezing.

... interestingly enough, we refrigerate produce and freeze meat in order to transport it to the future, don't we?

[edit on 7-9-2010 by RestingInPieces]

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:41 AM

That would be true Time travel, the "traveller" did not move through physical space at relative rate, but took a shortcut through fabric of space / time itself.

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:03 AM

Originally posted by ariel bender

it is not time travel, you are experiencing time at a slower rate than the people on earth, when you arrive back on earth you are not actually arriving at the future. Time passed normally for people on earth, although at a slower rate compared to the your rocket. Time passed for you as well, the year on your rocket took one full year of your life.

LOL

its pretty obvious that

but hey, thats the best we will ever be able to do my friend

there is no way to travel back in the past or to the future using wormholes(or any type of these instant techniques, thats just sy-fi

the only way to do that if the guy that created our "system" wanted us to, but that would mean that we are just AI and dont exist anywhere but this \$#%&

so, I really dont get it why you are bashing the thread ... thats the only way to do it, so, you would be able to get to the future faster than everybody outside the ship

its just dumb to try to discuss that the meaning in the dictionary ... come on man

[edit on 7/9/10 by Faiol]

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:31 AM
The closer you get to speed of light the slower the passing of time will be for you (clocks will turn slower) On earth time will be normal although we have only manged to slow time for individuals a fraction of a second so far because of the great difficulty achieving anything close to this speed as mass also increases the faster you go (in theory it is not possible to reach this speed because the object will end up having infinite mass and require infinite energy) and how do you get something to move when it has this quality?

All of the top of my head may be wrong

posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:12 AM

I am not bashing the thread, just trying to define what time travel is. If we are going to debate physics, super, no problem. But we need to have a standard or some sort of reference for what time travel constitutes.

Actually moving through the space/Time will be impossible, as far as known. There are so many obstacles within Nature it is not apparent how it would be accomplished.

But it is fun to discuss possible methods, for instance if we live in an electromagnetic plasma Universe instead of gravitational universe, then it opens up another set of possibilities, but nothing we could do in foreseeable future.

Anyway this is an open forum, trying to understand the world we live in.

new topics

top topics

0