My theory of travel

T

trebornjist

Temporal Novice
I believe that to time travel, it really is traveling. I read an article one day in a magazine and it said that the only physical means of time travelling would be to catch light rays that have already hit the earth and passed on. This means that the only way to time travel would be to travel faster than light and catch on into these light rays and observe the past. After all, it is said that if you view a star explode, it is really exploding thousands of years ago. POINT: the way to time travel would be to catch light rays that passed earth and view things that have already happened but not be able to interact with them...so travel into the future would be impossibe and interacting with things in the past would be impossible. Just the most logical reason of time travel to me. But im not a scientist so i dont really know.
 
What makes you think the scientists know? You are the beginning of any path in this area. It is all just speculation. The key is finding a doorway then figure out a way to unlock it.

Your guess is as good as any!

Study is observing what we know then understanding why it dosn't make sense. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Every great discovery started with a new way of questioning.
 
i just think that it is the most logical way to physically time travel...i haven't really heard the other theories so i wouldn't really know...well the whole black whole theory kind of makes sense to me
 
you have no idea what your talking about.... if you are really interested in learning why don't you! the information is out there. cathing light rays? someones been watching too much K-Pax
 
one last thing, travel into the future is a CERTAINTY. its travel into the past we don't seem to be very good at. im traveling into the future now, so are you, every second.
 
I think this is a good hypothasis (sp?) for time travel.

Yet, using this hypothasis, we might be able to view the future, the same way we could view the past.

If we could travel faster then light, and catch up with the light rays from the past then we could see them, and technicly view the past around us.(we wouold have to figure out where they are to catch up to them)

"To know where your going, you have to know where your coming from"

so we know where the light rays traveled to (we had to catch up with them), and we know where they came from, then we could use that information to possible view the future the same as we viewd the past.

Now some believe that the universe is completly full (cannot be created or destroyed). meaning that no extra atoms, or strings, or waves, ect, can be added to the universe, because there is no room.

Since the universe is completly full, a movment creates a chan reaction (kind of like the chaos theory). One atom moves, which moves another one, which moves another one, ect.

If we could build a device that could calculate the current position (x,y,z) and movment (velocity) of every atom (or whatever). then we could program that device to calculate where that atom (or whatever) is going to move to next, and then that would calculate how the atoms around it would have to move, ect.

So we would be able to view how the atoms would move, and there for see the future.

If we applied that to the light waves, since we knew how the did move, we could calculate how they are going to move, and view a calculated view of the future.


thats what i came up with after reading this post, im no where near a genius, so theres proablby something wrong with my hypothasis (not just the spelling, lol) but thats what i think.
 
If we could travel faster then light, and catch up with the light rays from the past then we could see them, and technicly view the past around us.(we wouold have to figure out where they are to catch up to them)
Click to expand...
There is flawed logic here which is revealed if you dig a little deeper. People have often said the same thing about sound waves and traveling faster than the speed of sound, which also doesn't work.

The issue here is acceleration and deceleration. Assuming we find a way to travel faster than the speed of light (which is sketchy enough in and of itself), then yes you could outrun light waves from the past. But as soon as you want to slow down to actually view those light waves (which you must do, due to relativity), then you will again be going slower than the speed of light. You can NOT slow down immediately, because it would create such huge accelerations that yourself and the ship you are in would be destroyed. Since you must gradually decelerate from light speed, it is highly likely that within this time the light waves you wish to observe would pass you up again.

Issues like this are precisely why you cannot try to reason about these things with prose alone. You must do the math, identify the limiting conditions, and see how the limiting conditions affect your goals.

Sorry,
RMT
 
There is flawed logic here which is revealed if you dig a little deeper. People have often said the same thing about sound waves and traveling faster than the speed of sound, which also doesn't work.

The issue here is acceleration and deceleration. Assuming we find a way to travel faster than the speed of light (which is sketchy enough in and of itself), then yes you could outrun light waves from the past. But as soon as you want to slow down to actually view those light waves (which you must do, due to relativity), then you will again be going slower than the speed of light. You can NOT slow down immediately, because it would create such huge accelerations that yourself and the ship you are in would be destroyed. Since you must gradually decelerate from light speed, it is highly likely that within this time the light waves you wish to observe would pass you up again.

Issues like this are precisely why you cannot try to reason about these things with prose alone. You must do the math, identify the limiting conditions, and see how the limiting conditions affect your goals.

Sorry,
RMT
Click to expand...

Not to argue with you, but I wouldn't think the issue is acceleration/deceleration. As soon as you decelerate below the speed of light, the "old" light that you passed would catch up to you. You would then be able to observe that light and "see" the past. You don't have to come to a complete stop to observe the light.

The issue I see is that you are only seeing a representation, not the matter itself. You are not in the past, only seeing the past. We do this all the time when we view distant stars. In fact, you could use that example and just say that the Earth was given a headstart. Or maybe the Earth travelled faster than the speed of light at some point in the past and is now slowed down enough to see the past in the form of light from distant stars. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Of course, this whole scenario starts off with an if. And where we are now, that if is not possible. So it's all hypothetical.
 
”The issue I see is that you are only seeing a representation, not the matter itself. You are not in the past, only seeing the past. We do this all the time when we view distant stars. In fact, you could use that example and just say that the Earth was given a headstart.”
Click to expand...


Perfect. That IS why I HATE faster than light method. Achieving it is difficult(I don’t say impossible) and even after that there is no GUARANTEE it would work.

IF you cannot GO TO the past and meet yourself and come back to where you left, what is the use of Time Travel?

It’s like saying I got an ink which is invisible. I prove it by writing it on a paper and showing the difference in the weight of the paper. But what is the USE of my research and invention?
 
If FTL wiggles in one place?

*The placement of tiny effigy's of military offers on the tips of drone aircraft, that are both well dressed, neat and clean and that bear their swords towards the enemy as in academy days, shall surly vanquish the foe.

Small expose, on super-numerism.
 
Hi Iridium,
Not to argue with you, but I wouldn't think the issue is acceleration/deceleration.
Click to expand...
Do you know the simple way to calculate acceleration (in G's) based on the speed of light, the speed you want to slow down to, and the time you wish to slow to that speed? If so, you can calculate the G's required and you might see how high they are, unless you choose days, weeks, or months to perform the deceleration. And when you calculate these G's remember that the max the human body can withstand is on the order of 9 G's for brief periods of Time.
You don't have to come to a complete stop to observe the light.
Click to expand...
This is true, but you might look into the Lorentz transformations to help you calculate just how much below the speed of light you'll have to slow down in order to be able to actually observe those events without a large SpaceTime distortion.
For instance, slowing to 90% of the speed of light, there will still be a lot of visual distortion (looking backward as well as forward). Check it out, do the math, and let us know what you find! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
The issue I see is that you are only seeing a representation, not the matter itself.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is very true. You are only a passive observer to the past, not an active participant in it. But there are other problems too. Since light is always reflecting and re-reflecting off of planets and other stars, and getting mixed with the light waves you wish to observe, you will still have a lot of "noise" from these reflections of light that you would want to filter out from the view of the past events. How do you account for this in the theory?

Just pointing out the problems you encounter when you go from a theory you talk about to the reality of trying to make it happen. It's the world that engineers and scientists have to work in.

RMT
 
IF you cannot GO TO the past and meet yourself and come back to where you left, what is the use of Time Travel?
Click to expand...
Think a little harder and deeper, Herc, and you will see vast benefits and uses for even passive TT. I'm surprised that a "deep thinker" like you cannot immediately see the benefits. Let me give you one very pertinent example, and then another one close to your heart:

1) What if you could travel back in time, as a passive observer to see an event that conspiracy theorists tell stories about? Like this one: People love to say that there was no airplane that crashed into the Pentagon, when there is plenty of airplane wreckage, and photos of it, to prove it. But if you could passively TT back to that point, you could COMPLETELY verify what the actual truth of that moment was. Couldn't you? You could see the past, as it happened, because you would have "theoretically" caught-up to the light waves to view the event.


2) Extend it to your favorite TT superhero, John Titor. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif If you could travel passively back in Time, as suggested with this theory, you could also find the exact place that the Titor postings were created from...and view those events. You would ACTUALLY be able to SEE who was sitting at a computer TYPING and POSTING the Titor story! Now wouldn't THAT be useful for your quest to validate Titor?


RMT
 
Notes this thread, faster than light, can be localized to one spot.

So velocity over a distance involving light, may not be a problem.

The twin toruses are not a factor, regarding the said double donut interposing on each other, as the simulation of twin black hole,s still might be more sphere-like.

In nature a Kerr's doubelarity, might be two spheres, interposed on one another.

Black holes always take in matter and this is deposited for effect on the outside of this twin black hole.

A mechanical approximation, is an entirely differing object, as the mechanics, due to the output to achieve a proposed doublearity, would be different than a Kerr's double black hole, is reality.

The one factor of having to go faster than light, might be based as a not knowing ego argument, rather than looking a true quantitative analysis, of how nature afford occlusive features, within its own structure of space and time?

If one has ever visited what is known as a gravity spot, then they will understand that gravity from probable buried meteorites, can affect the nature of time and space.

Add faster than light travel, but only at a stationary placement, into this argument?
 
You could see the past, as it happened, because you would have "theoretically" caught-up to the light waves to view the event.
Click to expand...

But if you couldn't return to where you started, you would be the only one who knows. You would have to catch up to the original light waves too, after going through the atmosphere and all passing through all the space dust and gas, it would be pretty blurry.

If your time machine can't get you back to the original point you left it would be good to escape natural disasters, asteroids.
 
Do you know the simple way to calculate acceleration (in G's) based on the speed of light, the speed you want to slow down to, and the time you wish to slow to that speed? If so, you can calculate the G's required and you might see how high they are, unless you choose days, weeks, or months to perform the deceleration. And when you calculate these G's remember that the max the human body can withstand is on the order of 9 G's for brief periods of Time.
Click to expand...
Never heard a response, but I figured I would offer some of the numbers to give people a feel:

If you wished to slow to 50% of the speed of light, and you selected a full 1 month period to accomplish the deceleration, you would still be experiencing a constant 5 G's for that month! And this is, of course, just using the standard delta-V divided by Delta-T. When you account for SpaceTime distortion using the Lorentz equations, the G levels go up further.

RMT
 
What you are doing is mixing Newtonian mechanics with FTL probabilities.

This is not even true in your last post, as if you have a magnetic means to achieve FTL, then you the rider, would be part of the event sphere.

So gravity would have canceled out, due to the exclusionary principle.
 
This is not even true in your last post, as if you have a magnetic means to achieve FTL, then you the rider, would be part of the event sphere.

So gravity would have canceled out, due to the exclusionary principle.
Click to expand...
Read carefully, Creeds, to see you are wrong. Gravity is only canceled when you are FTL. Note that we are discussing what happens when you slow to sublight speed, at which time gravitational forces will again be present in any non-inertial reference frame.

RMT
 
Depends on how you get that FTL principle.

If it's by magnetics, then gravity to an extent become superfluis.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true. But if you read through my threads, you will see that I was not at all focusing on how one achieved FTL travel, and I even indicated how sketchy it is that we could do it, given what we currently know. My point was focusing on the decelerations necessary to slow back down to observe the light waves you has supposedly outrun. I was explaining the problems associated with that.

RMT
 
Back
Top