Jump to content

Can someone truly build a working time machine?


<em>Guest</em>
 Share

Recommended Posts

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).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh.

 

since your time machine will be stationary,you will move along with the earth as it moves over time...like a rock sitting on the ground...

 

simply make it to be as like the one depicted by HG Wells,it moved throw a sequence,not just zapping the user instantly to the time he requested...

 

Fast Out

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh.

 

since your time machine will be stationary,you will move along with the earth as it moves over time...like a rock sitting on the ground...

 

simply make it to be as like the one depicted by HG Wells,it moved throw a sequence,not just zapping the user instantly to the time he requested...

 

Fast Out

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were some experiments some years back that flew atomic clocks over the Earth in jet planes. The clocks went slower because they were farther away from Earth's gravity and respective time dilation. (To paraphrase relativity, big massive objects slow time down) Flying in an air plane for 12 hours and gaining that "nanosecond" of youth sounds a lot easier than building a teleporter.

 

Trevor

 

[email protected]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...