Can someone truly build a working time machine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Time02112:

Fine. I accept your statement. (Whether I agree with it or not.) Now all you have to do is publish some references here to back up the claims you make. Or at least the details of the reasoning you used to arrive at them. So far you have done neither. You make claims that certain things are "so", and never explain WHY you think so, or offer scientific reference to the foundations of your statements. In short, you make the incorrect presumption that we are bound to believe what you say is true merely because you say so. Sorry, no dice. References please!

Time^Master:

It's not a position I intend to continue forward with, but one takes a job when one is offered. Hopefully, it will enhance my resume for the future. To specifically answer your question, Aircraft Guidance Systems involve the operation of control surfaces which are in turn operated by hydraulics in many cases. For now, this area is giving me much needed experience in the workplace and while it is not what I would specifically like to apply my teachings to, it is a good start in the real world. And it pays better than slinging hamburgers at Mickey D's.

TimeTravelActivist:

I fail to see what I have been guilty of other than responding to a personal attack instigated by someone else.

It isn't the issue of whether I agree or disagree with a person's point of view, it's the manner in which it is presented. I have found Janus's arguments to be polite, and in the spirit of well conducted debate. Even if I don't agree that he has described the "two body problem" correctly as would apply to my original scenario. DaveTrott is ALSO a speaker of considerable refinement, manners and reasonable presentation. I hope he sticks around.

P.S. I'm FEMALE. When you say to Janus, "he's" a buffoon like you, you've made a hugely incorrect presumption of the very type one needs to avoid when engaging in scientific debate. Look up the term "Valkyrie" on one of the web's search engines. You find it under Nordic Mythology as a female witch who accompanies warriors she chooses to be slain, to Valhalla, the Nordic version of "heaven". The archaic Nordic original spelling is with a "y" as opposed to "Valk-e-rie". I choose the "e" for individual personal reasons. As well as the handle. And you can read anything into that you want to. i.e - "Presume" some more.

Then to all:

If the problem of time travel is to be solved, it can't be by negating proven facts of science. Many people make claims that are just plain wrong and PROVABLE as such. But it does not deter them anyway. As if we can just ignore what we already know.

If there is NEW science to be explored, then THAT has to be backed up with sound reasoning and some clear definitions of how one has arrived at the conclusions. THEN the debate can continue on solid ground. If someone has new ideas to propose, they fall apart if further questioning results in the proposer ducking the questions in favor of shifting focus away from that which they already know cannot be explained in their proposal. In other words, a simple "I don't know" will do. But sidestepping questions on the issue destroys the integrity of the original argument. Totally. It's called a "straw man argument" and is a classic technique of debaters who wish to make claims they can't back up or provide data for that stands up to scrutiny.

Incredible claims require incredible proof.
 
Valkerie,
While reading your long (boring) 1 page and 1/2 explanation of your self. I found that it reminded me of sitting in one of my lame logic classes in college. Man, you used all of the keywords I learned on my first day there.

It took all of that logical ice picking just to prove your case of what we said about you.

Just like Janus... Arrogant, and hide behind your words, tisk-tisk. Cover up your mistakes as best you can with logic =P huh? Cleaver, but you don't fool me.

I may not be scientific or logical at all times, but I am psychic and empathic =). And I'm hardly ever wrong about people.

So just know I didn't buy into your explanation. You contradicted your self and you know it =) admit it.

Javier C.

P.S. Not another chick =)... J/k
 
"EAT CROW" Valkerie!...you earned it.
I do not have to prove a thing to you!

Nonetheless, for those of you who are interested in crulling through all of the pages to find somewhat detailed information in reference to many of those ideas I have posted, you can begin with this link:]
http://einstein.stanford.edu




<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 17 June 2000).>
 
TimeTravelActivist:

"...Man, you used all of the keywords..."

Man? MAN?

What sort of outdated long passe street lingo do you call this?

"MAN"?????

You really do NOT know how to pay attention do you.

Oh, and by the way,

Go BACK to the HOME PAGE of this board (you know, the one with the code that has the "mouseover" for red banners) and go all the way to the bottom and read the statement where TTI REMINDS YOU that this board is "FICTION"!

Thats right "FICTION" spelled "F", "I", "C", "T", "I", "O", "N"!

Then go into your bathroom, look into the mirror, pop those disgusting little zits on your juvenile face, and come on back and try to play in an arena where you don't even understand the meaning of the word "vituperative". (Yeah, that's the ticket, go look it up!)

Thank you for your continued demonstration of how a typically overly testerone charged sissy can think he can prove his as yet undeveloped manhood by reverting to the literary style of a pre-pubescent junior high school drop out.

Damn, you're clever. And it really shows.
 
Valkerie: :-)

See why I stopped paying attention to them? It'll never work, they'll never give in, no matter how infantile and insulting they have to become before you just give up.

I like how Time02112 responds to your post right after he says he won't even read your posts...

Oh, and for the record, yes I did cheat and read TTA & Time02112's posts, but at least I didn't respond to them.
 
Janus, would you please elaborate as to what the Hell you are implying when you say that I will "never give in"?

give in to what exactly?
are you trying to say that none of my points are valid, and only yours are?
if so, then that itself speaks of arrogance, and has no validity niether!
 
Valkerie and Janus,
You both claim to have all the right answers? Yet you participate in a message board where obviously your intelligence is constently being insulted... The true question would be, why? Why do you post if you don't like what your reading? You remind me of the bully at school that would always mess around with the little kids because he's really a sad person in side. Are you that sad inside Valkerie? And how about you Janus, what's troubling you in your life, are you not happy with your wife (or have one)? Your responses to people all come into some form of attack... Why?

Who are you really attacking? What do you hate about your selves? How are your relationships with your mother and father? I would really look into that as being your problem, not my posting.

Oh and by the way, I’m not a sissy, I’m far from that =). And I don’t get any complaints about my manhood either =D haha if you know what I mean.

Valkerie, don’t be upset that you never gotten it good in your life =) I can tell you’re a bitter woman. Why not participate in a feminist message board and burn your bras, or whatever you men hating women do =D. Seems more down your alley.

If you can’t stand the heat, do the smart thing like your little buddy Janus did, and in the words of The Great One, The Rock; “Know your damn role, and shut your mouth Jabronie.” Look that one up =).

-Javier C.

(No offence to the women reading this, my response was just to Valkerie).
 
PHEW! Well I already had my turn in the barrel-(referance to a dirty joke about having a bad day)- but I still don't understand why everyone gets so heated up? If we all totally agreed on everything there would be nothing to discuss. BORING. I think enjoying the bickering is good but it escalates and gets mean. No good.
 
I would advise that everyone simply ignore flames such as these, as they contribute nothing to the discussion of time travel and often destroy the original discussion in a thread.

So I ask everyone on this board to refrain from replying to blatant flames, even if they are directed at you. I realize it may be tempting to respond (God knows I am) but it serves no useful purpose.
 
Janus, lately you been more inclined to try and play the peace maker here. You posted a reply to almost all of the topics here for today, and I can tell your trying very hard to win people over. I know people here don’t like you, and you realize that =). But pretending to be open minded and to understand what’s going on isn’t going to work.

You don’t come off as a friend, or someone I would like to take advise from. Since I know how you were and of the things you posted before in the past. We won’t be fooled again, right guys/ and women =).

What happened the last time when someone apologized for being a jerk and being closed minded? Remember? He thought he was better then us, in everyway possible. Didn’t he also call us names? And then tried to hide it well when he said he would try and be more open minded... But ended up only pretending to be.

Didn’t I tell you so?

So in conclusion. You may fool me 1 time, and I may forgive you, but if you fool me 2 times, I’m the fool =D. So just to let everyone know, from someone who’s never been two faced. Always look at who’s saying what, especially if this person has a hidden agenda & motive.

Have a nice day,
Javier C.

P.S. Janus, everyone here knows your an arrogant SOB, what are you trying to prove now?


<This message has been edited by TimeTravelActivist (edited 18 June 2000).>
 
Janus;
I could say... "I accept your statement. (Whether I agree with it or not.)

but I will not, since that kind of statement reflects nothing more than a blatent contradiction.

Hmmmm.....I wonder where I heard that from?
(care to comment Valkerie?)

<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 19 June 2000).>
 
Look, I did not come here to argue with anyone, nor do I care to continue feeding fuel to the furnace, nonetheless I did not come here to be patronized, mocked, or insulted by suggestive innuendoes indicating that nothing I have to say here matters, has any basis of merit, or validity. (which in itself, was based upon someone else’s personal predisposed judgments, or biased misconceptions.) This is totally unacceptable.

I have never professed, or claim to have an impeccable perception of how the laws of nature work, in relation to the laws of physics, however I did not arrive at these precipitins of mine, without influence by others around me. (*Others including, but not limited to Physicists, Scientists, Doctors, Philosophers, Professors, & etc. many of which have earned them credentials of high caliber,which lead them to recognized status within the many communities in which they served within the world around them, and for the countless accomplishments, and contributions they have made world wide.

The truth is that I "have" posted some references to demonstrate how I arrived at some of those perceptions I have shared with everyone here, and never once did anyone acknowledge them, outside of being insulted for my ability to "cut & paste" (with the exception of Dr. Anderson) pertaining to the references given, never was I asked to elaborate further details as to where I received my information from, or where else might we find more information on the subject of discussion.

There is nothing wrong with asking for more information, in relation to where that source of information originated from, but personal attacks, or biased opinions based upon irroneous arguments geared to diminish, or destroy that idea instead of finding out other ways to support that idea, is nothing more than an outright challenge to keep defending each & every idea with an equal amount of opposition which can lead to endless debate. Although we are all aware of the fact that our planet is "round" ... however, if we really wanted to, I'm almost certain that we could come up with some very creative ways in which to demonstrate with logical, and very good scientific reasons as to why we should all start believing that the world is really "Flat" and what point would that prove?

I understand that objective views are necessary to an extent, but when those objective views have an ulterior motive to destroy anothers intentions to explore other possibilities, and to hear the thoughts, and input from others in support of those ideas, that too is not acceptable.


<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 19 June 2000).>
 
Anyhow, on with the show......(Can someone truly build a working *Time Machine?)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Physicists have found the law of nature which prevents time travel paradoxes, and
thereby permits time travel. It turns out to be the same law that makes sure light
travels in straight lines, and which underpins the most straightforward version of
quantum theory, developed half a century ago by Richard Feynman.

Relativists have been trying to come to terms with time travel for the past seven
years, since Kip Thorne and his colleagues at Caltech discovered -- much to their
surprise -- that there is nothing in the laws of physics (specifically, the general
theory of relativity) to forbid it. Among several different ways in which the laws
allow a time machine to exist, the one that has been most intensively studied mathematically
is the "wormhole". This is like a tunnel through space and time, connecting different
regions of the Universe -- different spaces and different times. The two "mouths"
of the wormhole could be next to each other in space, but separated in time, so that
it could literally be used as a time tunnel.

Building such a device would be very difficult -- it would involve manipulating black
holes, each with many times the mass of our Sun. But they could conceivably occur
naturally, either on this scale or on a microscopic scale.

The worry for physicists is that this raises the possibility of paradoxes, familiar
to science fiction fans. For example, a time traveller could go back in time and
accidentally (or even deliberately) cause the death of her granny, so that neither
the time traveller's mother nor herself was ever born. People are hard to describe
mathematically, but the equivalent paradox in the relativists' calculations involves
a billiard ball that goes in to one mouth of a wormhole, emerges in the past from
the other mouth, and collides with its other self on the way in to the first mouth,
so that it is knocked out of the way and never enters the time tunnel at all. But,
of course, there are many possible "self consistent" journeys through the tunnel,
in which the two versions of the billiard ball never disturb one another.

If time travel really is possible -- and after seven years' intensive study all the
evidence says that it is -- there must, it seems, be a law of nature to prevent such
paradoxes arising, while permitting the self- consistent journeys through time. Igor
Novikov, who holds joint posts at the P. N. Lebedev Institute, in Moscow, and at
NORDITA (the Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics), in Copenhagen, first pointed
out the need for a "Principle of Self-consistency" of this kind in 1989 (Soviet Physics
JETP, vol 68 p 439). Now, working with a large group of colleagues in Denmark, Canada,
Russia and Switzerland, he has found the physical basis for this principle.

It involves something known as the Principle of least action (or Principle of minimal
action), and has been known, in one form or another, since the early seventeenth
century. It describes the trajectories of things, such as the path of a light ray
from A to B, or the flight of a ball tossed through an upper story window. And, it
now seems, the trajectory of a billiard ball through a time tunnel. Action, in this
sense, is a measure both of the energy involved in traversing the path and the time
taken. For light (which is always a special case), this boils down to time alone,
so that the principle of least action becomes the principle of least time, which
is why light travels in straight lines.

You can see how the principle works when light from a source in air enters a block
of glass, where it travels at a slower speed than in air. In order to get from the
source A outside the glass to a point B inside the glass in the shortest possible
time, the light has to travel in one straight line up to the edge of the glass, then
turn through a certain angle and travel in another straight line (at the slower speed)
on to point B. Travelling by any other route would take longer.

The action is a property of the whole path, and somehow the light (or "nature") always
knows how to choose the cheapest or simplest path to its goal. In a similar fashion,
the principle of least action can be used to describe the entire curved path of the
ball thrown through a window, once the time taken for the journey is specified. Although
the ball can be thrown at different speeds on different trajectories (higher and
slower, or flatter and faster) and still go through the window, only trajectories
which satisfy the Principle of least action are possible. Novikov and his colleagues
have applied the same principle to the "trajectories" of billiard balls around time
loops, both with and without the kind of "self collision" that leads to paradoxes.
In a mathematical tour de force, they have shown that in both cases only self-consistent
solutions to the equations satisfy the principle of least action -- or in their own
words, "the whole set of classical trajectories which are globally self-consistent
can be directly and simply recovered by imposing the principle of minimal action"
(NORDITA Preprint, number 95/49A).

The word "classical" in this connection means that they have not yet tried to include
the rules of quantum theory in their calculations. But there is no reason to think
that this would alter their conclusions. Feynman, who was entranced by the principle
of least action, formulated quantum physics entirely on the basis of it, using what
is known as the "sum over histories" or "path integral" formulation, because, like
a light ray seemingly sniffing out the best path from A to B, it takes account of
all possible trajectories in selecting the most efficient.

So self-consistency is a consequence of the Principle of least action, and nature
can be seen to abhor a time travel paradox. Which removes the last objection of physicists
to time travel in principle -- and leaves it up to the engineers to get on with the
job of building a time machine.


------------------
"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."

p)'i4q4
 
To hear a pre-recorded "live interview" with Mr. Gibbs, (available in Real Player, or Win98 Media Player format)...Please visit the following address:] http://216.216.113.77/topics.html

6/27/00 - Tue/Wed
Guest: Steve Gibbs
Has build a time machine he calls the Hyper Dimensional Resonator.


------------------
"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."

p)'i4q4
 
Time02112:
I was wandering when you would talk about Gibbs and his device. I saw the picture and read his story in strange magazine. The interviewer did not belive his story and advised his reader not to also. http://www.strangemag.com/timetravel.html
Gibbs and his device have but one perpose and that is to take advantage of peoples lack of understanding of time travel. I am sure he has a good explanation for when the device fails to perform, however by this time he already has your money!
 
What I dont understand is why somebody would invent a time machine and mass produce it and sell it to just anybody.
time~master (1) although I went to the web site you mentioned that other story was REALLY interesting. here: http://www.strangemag.com/highstrangenesstimetrav.html
about seeing the car from another time appear on the road and then vanish.



<This message has been edited by pamela (edited 28 June 2000).>
 
Mr. Gibb's model time machine is just one of many for sale, or to build, through the internet. I almost find it amusing that, a machine, if could be invented, would certainly revolutionize all of mankind for better or worse, is available in so many makes and models. A machine, so important and invaluable, is almost as easy to buy as going to the local grocery store and purchasing a carton of cigarettes!!
 
What fun would that be?
happy.gif


Besides, what would people think if you told them you just went on a mental time travel trip?
 
I think the idea of the "mental travel" sounds more like magic, telepathy or something, best i recomend you use youre intelect and put your mind to think in phisycs and maths, your life would be better
 
Back
Top