Dangers of Time travel

D

David1

Temporal Novice
If time travel does become possible then There are many dangers we must be prepared to encounter.
The displacement theory:
One of my favourite rhetorical questions is: how do you define nothing?
If you want to travel back in time you would have to find an area with nothing there. Including the main gases of our atmoshpere. If we travel back in time we are going back to a place that is occupied by matter Be it pollution particles in the air or even air itself. This would cause a cataclysmic explosion because as soon as you arrive back at your chosen time the matter that you are displacing is moving into other matter faster than light causing an explosion much like the atom bomb. This would render your time machine useless and also you human frame. To avoid this we would have to create a space in time like a vacuum containing no matter whatsoever.
 
That's why some people believe that UFOs are time machines. They can safely materialize in space near the target planet and target time. They carry their own safe air, food, water supplies, etc. and can easily find a safe, secluded spot to land. The little gray, big-eyed inhabitants may be our future selves.
 
How do you know they carry their own food? How do you know they even drink and eat? You an Alien or something
happy.gif
?
 
But do you not think that as soon as the "alien/timetraveller" will encounter difficulties as he/she passess through the earths atmosphere as the heat/pressure will add to the danger of the displaced particles such as cfc's and oxgen
 
TTA: Today's astronauts carry their own air, water, and food supplies -- don't they?

David: If a time machine (UFO) materializes in space, then it will enter and travel through the earths's atmosphere just like today's space shuttle does.
 
But you are still displacing the air on Earth. This might make the desity of the air on Earth increace and once again causing damage to all
 
If you're talking about displacement when the time machine enters that time, it wouldn't matter where it is. Even space is full of junk, stellar material, and the like.
 
This is what I stated before. However the explosion would be infinite if the ship travels temperally back along it's own time line. For in such a case the ship will displace the atoms that made up it's mass at what ever time it resurfaces. Since two positive bodies would be occupying the same space at the same time the density of the mass would increase to infinity. Thus one would form a singularity and the ship would appear to implode to an infinitely small point. Here is the catch. At zero the an infinitely small point the ship will exist every where at once thus the infinite force of the ship will occupy all points in space decreasing the density of energy to zero simultaneous to increasing the density of space to infinity at the point. Actually the energy would remain infinitely dense but the space time at the point would have a density of zero and a volume of zero if space time volume is not independent of space-time density. Or the space at the point will have an arbitrary volume quantity volume of one and a density of zero if the space-time density is independent of space-time volume(which I think it is not in this case but is in other cases). For the decrease in volume density to energy density ratio is due to the increase volume of energy occupying a space-time volume that has a constant density. Thus the energy increases density and the volume density of space appears to be less with respect to the density of energy occupying it. The inverse is true as well in that if energy density and quantity remain comstant then to increase the volume of space-time in the region that the energy occupies will decrease the density of the energy on acount that the same quantity of energy at the same density will appear to have expanded to occupy a greater volume of space. Thus if the volume of space doubles the energy density within that volume of space-time will decrease proportionate to the inverted square of the increase in space time volume. S=1/e^2. Where e=energy density, and S=space-time density. Can anyone concure or dispute? Therfore if we were to cause a ship to enter at an area of space-time of zero density we would be causing our ship to surface at an area of infinite energy density--not a good idea of the above theory is correct. We would have to due the opposite. We would want to enter our ship into an area of infinite space time density which would make our ship surface at an area of zero energy density. Causing our ship to surface at an area of zero or extremely low energy density--within the tolerable limits of the ship--might be easier then it sounds. I believe, and I could be wrong, that all one would have to due is to decrease the temperature within a given as close to near zero kelvin as possible--that is -- close enough to decrease the energy density of that region to a tolerable limit. If one can decrease the temperature of a region close enough to zero to start disentigrating the quantum form or chance order of the energy mass of strong force, nuclear force, and electro-magnetic force then one would be able to displace any massive quantity without increasing the density of that mass. This is because density of a mass that is composed of chance or probability waves oppose other masses as a result of the force that causes the energy waves to maintain their spherical form. This rigidity is solidified as the energy occupies areas of lesser probability which means that the energy has lesser choices as to what exact form it will take. Since space-time is literally volume of chance stuff by increasing the volume of space that a given energy quanta occupies increases the number of choices of form that the energy can choose to assume. This is why energy that occupies a greater region of space-time has lesser density and is more permiable and (I think) has a greater permativity the energy of confined to a lesser volume. By decreaing the temperature within a region to zero kelvin one increases the density of space-time with in that region to an infinite density and the energy within that region to a density of zero by allowing that energy to have an infinite number of forms it can choose to assume and an permeability of infinity and (I think) a permativity of infinity. One other point I would like to make is that it would take the same quantity of energy to send a mass back in time to a given point as would be released by that mass when it enters that occupied state at that particular time. In other words, if a mass traveling back in time one second required a sustained infinite output energy of two light seconds then the energy that would have been released by that mass upon entering that given region would be a sustained infinite output of energy for a period of two light seconds. This would mean that the amount of energy released by the ship reentering the time would be zero on account that the energy was used up to bring back to that time if it were not for the fact the ship and energy in that ship becomes an open system thus nullifying the affects of all the laws of conservation while the ship is traveling between point P and O...or rather Z and A on the time scale. Also since the finite quantity of energy of the ship become nonlinear and possibly random at the instant the ship becomes an open system while jumping into time warp the quantity of mass that the ship will have after entering the universe will have a negative value between nearly zero an nearly negative infinity upon entering the universe. I have to be honest with you I highly doubt that the last statement I made is accurate. I believe that as long as the system is intransition in an opent state that the quantity defining the mass and energy of the ship is increases or decreases non linear either/or randomly or with perfect order. But upon entering the time frame regardless of the energy at that the instant of reentery that the ship will assume the exact or nearly exact form an quantity of energy upon returning to a close system state as it did when it left time instant Z in the future.


What does everyone think? Does any of this sound logical? TTA I need some more of your good crituiques what is your oppinion? TTO what is your oppinion? Time02112 howabout yours? Pamela? Draco2? Plight? Razmatazz? Anyone else I am forgetting? Howabout you new viewers? Or the silent ones that like to read but not to post too often?

Inquisitively and gratefully,

Edwin G. Schasteen [email protected] [email protected] sorry I could not double space I ran out of time.
 
David,

the space around your body and time machine which the fields from your time travel device occupy(be it electromagnetic,light,crystal,whatever)
pushes the air that occupied the space your time machine occupies once you stop..

time travel isnt instant..you dont just zip there like on back to the future.it is a slower effect like on HG Well's Time Mahine(Rod Taylor)..

speculation..not proven fact..yet..


FastWalker2

<This message has been edited by Fast (edited 01 February 2001).>
 
Dangers to the structure of the Universe aside, let's assume we travelled back in time a few hundred years, then returned to our own time-line. Would we not be running the risk of bringing with us some old enemies, like smallpox (which has been wiped out by modern medicine) or even bubonic plague?
Once we have developed our time machines, let's not forget decontamination procedures!
 
"time travel isnt instant..you dont just zip there like on back to the future.it is a slower effect like on HG Well's Time Mahine(Rod Taylor).."

H.G. Wells's time machine could not work. The instant you stop the machine, it would collide with itself. The atomic nuclei would be so close as to initiate a fusion reaction. You and the time machine would then explode like a hydrogen bomb. If you are blown to oblivion, how can you stop the machine? And if you don't stop it, then how does the explosion happen?

I think the best way to time-travel is by being teleported to the past like in Michael Crichton's Timeline.
 
hi, rgrunt.going to take my time reading what
you've written on a printout. In the meantime
my question is: while ignoring the mass and
matter of the space ship and traveller, what
do you suppose would happen if someone was to
go back in time to the occasion of christ's
last supper and grab the holy grail and bring it back into the present? There would now be
two grails in the present time frame. Would
this cause a disruption of the space time
fabric and if so what would be the result?


<This message has been edited by yg256 (edited 03 March 2001).>
 
clear that when traveling in the time changes in the universe exist, when it is never made to the future so that the order of events does not happen in your life but until you return of the trip, it is truth HG Wells I travel in the time but it knew that will see its life in a future where it was this is not one of the errors of that film of 85 to return to future. But more worse it is the past the paradoxical calls surround this event, since segun knows the universe where we move it does not create nor it destroys energy therefore, when traveling to the past we are in the same universe but we are a being that creates energy within the universe for that reason energy must have another one that us to contradit perhaps mass of antimatter of equal dimensions that we but i don't know is not perhaps so easy, nevertheless but the dificult one is to travel to the past to the single future you must sleep for a long time and soon these in the future, good asi of easy are. These I create are the dangers of an old one in the time.
 
I agree with doc brown. Time travel and teleportation can be looked at as being relatively similar, in my book. I believe that reasonance is the key. not resonance of matter, but resonance at a more fundamental level, that of consciousness. You would need to know the resonant state of the past environment, tune in to it, and as some would say, teleport yourself there. your machine would, then beam your resonant imprint to the tuned state. Now, the near infinite particle collisions at the virtual level (go to xsuit's new thread to here my outlook on this aspect of it) would be organized by the influence of the resonant imprint. You now exist in an alternate reality, that is extremely close to the past you are looking for. to get back, tune in to your resonance at its state before you left. do the same procedure, and wa-la. time travel at its finest.
 
I see that everyone here is talking about rematerializing in the past when your original self stays in the present, and that cause a big problem with matter/mass/time-space etc. Tell me if I'm wrong, but the only plausible way I can see to travel back in time is by going faster than the speed of light. Let me explain: If I took a space ship, and traveled to our closer start (4 and 1\2 light years away I believe) at exactly the speed of light, no time would have passed on my way there. If I satyed there for a couple of days and then came back at the speed of light EXACTYLY, then in reality my phisical self would have only be a couple of days older than when I left. There for, if one wanted to go back in time, it might be possible for him to travel faster than the speed of light. I wish I could draw a diagram or something to help explain... Light travel at the speed of light, now if we traveled at the speed of light from our closest star, we would be going the same speed as the light that just came off of that star. If we where doing this, when we got back to earth the theory goes we would technically be at earth the exact time we left the star because no time passed because we stayed at the sonstant speed of light. Therefor, if we went a little faster than the light...we might get back to earth in what is actually a couple of days before. Now if this did happen...we woulkd actually just be seeing the light of other things...it would just be a projection. Our actual selvs would be completely gone and in a different time, but we would go back in time qand see a projection of the light of the things that where happening a couple of days before, we could porbably not interact with them. This brings up the problem: If it is just a projection, how can we stand on it? We couldn't. We would have to time it so the earth would revole around the sun once and be in the right spot and exactly the right time. So technically we could trip on a rock when all we see is grass. On the other hand we could walk diorectly through a mountain if in reality there is nothing there...just grass. I will explain this more explicitly when I have more time but I have to go now...would like to talk to anyone E-Mail if you want to ([email protected]).

P.S. Sorry about any spelling errors again I had little time to write this.
 
You know, there are hundreds of "ripples" in spacetime, that means there are many more things to watch out for in the past, like if you accidentally kept yourself from travelling back in time in the first place, you would create a paradox!
 
Back
Top