• Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date


just a thought on time travel, our world is not static. We are always continuing to move through space. Where we are right now we will not be again due to our expanding universe. if we learn to travel thru time what would keep us linked to earth? once we ripped thru time depending on how far we went into the past or future wont we be 100s or 1000s of light years away from earth at the time we reappear if? just a question ive always thought about when time travel is mentioned
This one usually gets answered by "That's why you make your time travel machine a spaceship too, so you can fly back to your goal." But since we don't know how to go faster than light yet, that wouldn't help us out much anyway.

Maybe instead we just end up in the same place by the functioning of some kind of inertia, there being no absolute reference frame to the Universe and all.
Yes, using a spaceship is the safest way to go. It provides mobility, and a safe environment, such as a safe air supply, safe drinking water, food, etc.

I still don't see what the speed of light has to do with it since light is not the slowest or fastest wave/particle.
If we considering a person on a trampoline. The person and the trampoline have the
same inertial properties as the earth. As the person jumps he maintains the same
inertial properties. If he did not he would not land on the trampoline. We can be
convinced of this fact if we consider what would happen if this were not true. There
are three inertial velocities relevant to the person on the trampoline. 1)Rotational
velocity, 1037 miles\hr 2)Earths orbital velocity, 66638 miles\hr 3)Orbital velocity
of solar the system, 671080 miles\hr. If the person makes a jump that last 10
seconds and does not maintain these inertial velocities he will be displaced relative
to each by a value that can be determined with formula ( distance = rate x time ).
Since no displacement is observed we must conclude that all inertial properties are
maintained even when contact with the earth is not. We can generalized this
statement to include all froms of energy. It is also clear that all spatial inertial
properties will be maintained through out any acceletated temporal displacement.
What this means is if time travel is possible then a time machine does not have to be a spaceship. It also implies that it is not necessary to travel fast then light to travel through time.
NoTime: What wave/particle travels faster then then light?
Deja vu all over again.

Exerpt from a previous post:

Breaking Light's Own Speed Limit July 21, 2000 12:21 CDT

Scientists have apparently broken the universe's speed limit. For generations,
physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum at a
speed of 186,000 miles per second.

But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. It may seem more like magic than physics to some scientists, who have long assumed that nothing in the universe could go faster than the speed of
light in a vacuum.
Also to include, would be an elaborate compensatory methodology of "Folding Space"

This concept would enable us to ensure with proper calculation, that we would have pin-point accuracy to arrive at the proper location of space-time, as well as compensate for planetary drift, using CTC. (Closed time-like curvature)
A couple of Q's for you, time~master.

1. What time are you putting into distance = rate x time ? The traveller's or the Earth's?

2. "no displacement is observed" by whom? Have you been time travelling without telling us?

3. The velocities you mentioned are rotational velocities; to maintain these on another body (the traveller) you'd need forces to continue working on it. But the forces would work in reverse, because the traveller's going backward through time. So wouldn't this get all jumbled up and not nearly so simple and straightforward as you make it seem?
I hope that the following may "shine some light on this subject", without "raining on your parade." LoL


Shining the Light on Space-Time
August 28, 2000 08:20 CDT

Scientists have uncovered sets of oscillating X-ray signals from three neutron stars that may tell the story of the bending of the very fabric of space around these objects, broadcast to us from the stars much like the details of a science talk show buried within oscillating AM radio waves.

With AM radio, rapid changes in the strength of the radio wave signal (a modulation of amplitude) carry the encoded radio program. The modulation appears as "sidebands," weaker signals on either side of the oscillating carrier wave.

In three neutron stars, the first discovered sidebands in X-ray emission transmit a different kind of story: details about the stars' mass and spin, the distortion of space-time predicted by Albert Einstein, and the location of the inner-most stable orbit around each star -- all encoded by a natural process.

Three scientists at the Astronomical Institute of the University of Amsterdam -- Drs. Peter Jonker, Mariano Mendez (now with the Observatorio Astronomico La Plata in Argentina) and Michiel van der Klis -- used NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer to uncover these modulations caused by gravity at its extreme.

Their work appears in an article published in the recent issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

"For a couple of years now with the Rossi Explorer we have seen very rapid oscillations in the brightness of X-ray-emitting neutron stars, evidence of a strong curvature in space-time," said Jonker.

"Now we are seeing sidebands, another set of oscillations that provide even more detail about this world of extreme gravity. This is important new information needed to describe the environs of these fascinating objects."

According to Einstein's theory of gravity, space-time near a neutron star (as well as a black hole) is strongly curved. The discovery of sidebands in the X-ray emission allows new tests to see whether Einstein was right.

Neutron stars are the dense cinders left behind when certain massive stars explode in violent events called supernovae. A neutron star contains about the same mass as the Sun squeezed into a sphere about 10 miles in diameter.

Such a dense object exerts a tremendous gravitational force that, when part of a binary star system, is capable of pulling in gas from the neighboring star. This gas spirals onto the neutron star via an orbiting swirl called an accretion disk, which is visible in many wavelengths, particularly in X rays.

"Einstein's theory of how matter moves in strongly curved space-time has not yet been verified," said van der Klis. "Previous measurements have been made only where gravitational fields are weak, such as in our solar system.

"The Rossi Explorer is the first instrument that has allowed us to actually see how matter moves in the strong gravitational field near a neutron star. X rays carry that message."

The signals that the Rossi Explorer is capturing are high frequency oscillations in the X-ray emission, likely produced by clumps of gas in the accretion disk that are hurtling around the neutron star just above its surface at nearly the speed of light.

"The discovery of rapid X-ray oscillations using the Rossi Explorer a few years ago launched a swirl of intense theoretical work that has produced several possible explanations," said Dr. Jean Swank, an X-ray astronomer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and the project scientist for the Rossi Explorer mission. "The newly discovered signals may be the key that unlocks the door, so we can see what the right explanation is."

Several theorists have already suggested that the newly discovered sideband emission from gas orbiting around the three neutron stars -- named 4U 1608-52, 4U 1728-34, and 4U 1636-53 -- may be explained by Lense-Thirring precession of the gas.

This refers to the dragging of inertial frames, a qualitatively new prediction of Einstein's theory of gravity. Drs. Fred Lamb and Draza Markovic of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) have published work showing that Lense-Thirring precession of an accretion disk can persist and might be visible; animation based on their calculations is referenced below.

Lamb compares orbiting gas and the dragging of inertial frames around a neutron star to a marble rolling down a large funnel covered with fabric. "A dense neutron star is like a heavy, spinning object at the center of this funnel," Lamb said.

"As the object turns, it will twist the fabric, stretching it. The marble will start to roll toward the center of the funnel, but it soon deviates to the side because the fabric is moving and carries the marble with it."

In a similar fashion, clumps of gas falling inward will be dragged around a spinning neutron star. If, as expected, the inner part of the disk is slightly tilted with respect to the star's spin-axis, the X-ray emission produced when the gas collides with the star will vary with a frequency equal to twice the frequency at which inertial frames are dragged around the star. This variation will produce sidebands on the primary oscillation, similar to those observed.

If further analysis shows that this is indeed the case, the newly discovered sidebands will be direct evidence of frame dragging and will establish that the frequencies of the primary X-ray oscillations are indeed the orbital frequencies of gas hurtling around these neutron stars.

Further study of the sidebands will provide valuable new information about the effects of strong gravity and the properties of extremely dense matter, two of the most fundamental outstanding questions in modern astrophysics.

"This latest discovery demonstrates again the unique capabilities of the Rossi Explorer to probe the properties of the strong gravitational fields near neutron stars and black holes," said Lamb.

"The Rossi Explorer carries the largest X-ray detectors ever flown in space and was designed specifically to measure the motion of hot gas near compact objects. With each new discovery by the Rossi Explorer, we are coming closer to pinning down the properties of space-time near these bizarre objects."

The Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer is operated from Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Launched in 1995, the spacecraft was developed by Goddard with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of California, San Diego. Rossi observations are proposed by the international X-ray Astronomy community.

Staff Writer Ariel K. Jones

<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 29 August 2000).>
1. What time are you putting into distance = rate x time ? The traveller's or the Earth's?

The time value would be determind by the observer of the person jumping on the trampoline. Relative to the orbital velocity of the solar system, if a person is observed to make a 10 second jump and does not maintain the orbital velocity of the solar system he will be displaced relative to the trampoline by 1864.11 miles. Clearly this displacement does not occur, therefore the jumper must have maintained the orbital velocity of the solar system.

2. "no displacement is observed" by whom? Have you been time travelling without telling us?

The displacement is a spatial displacement not a temporal displacement. No time travel need to observer this displacment.

3. The velocities you mentioned are rotational velocities; to maintain these on another body (the traveller) you'd need forces to continue working on it. But the forces would work in reverse, because the traveller's going backward through time. So wouldn't this get all jumbled up and not nearly so simple and straightforward as you make it seem?

I have shown that all velocities are maintained with no effort on the part of the jumper. No additional forces are needed.
I'll answer the second part of your question tomorrow.
Back in the late forties, a number of very intelligent men, among them Dr. John von Neumann, the father of cybernetics, were exposed to the question, 'what if aliens were present?' Dr. von Neumann, in particular, reacted with some very innovative thinking. He first conceived of a way that they might get here. This device became known as the Von Neumann Machine.

He postulated that one way for a species to traverse the universe would be to build machines that perfectly replicated it in every detail of its being, and then to send these machines off in random directions, programmed to stop and replicate the species whenever an appropriately congenial planet was located.

In this way, a species that could achieve travel at an appreciable percentage of the speed of light, could populate an entire galaxy in a fairly reasonable time. Von Neumann thought that it might be five million years.

Von Neumann also worked on what is known as the Quantum Perception Problem. The problem is that particles do not enter a measurable state until they are perceived. The process of measurement, in a sense, assembles them into the appearance they present to the observer.

This means that perception is fundamental to the nature of what is seen. The mind assembles the information upon which rests the structure of reality. To an extent, the way the universe actually works depends upon the way it is perceived. For example, we have recently achieved wave-fronts that transmit information at many times the speed of light, something that was until very recently thought to be impossible to create as a physical effect. We will soon go even beyond this, and discover that we can transmit information so quickly that it arrives at its destination before it leaves its point of origin.

The human mind, will, in other words find the key to establishing perception outside of the space-time continunum. It is when this happens--and remember, that it is in the nature of such an event to culminate before it begins--that we will begin to experience full contact with "it."

Excerpt from:]08/25/00--Whitley's Journal: The Reason for the Secrecy by Whitley Strieber.
I still had the time-traveller idea in my head when I asked those questions, so they're a bit skewed that way. Anyway,

1. Sure, this works for a trampoline jumper, but it doesn't carry into the time travelling scenario. When one party's t is negative, which do you use?

3. Same deal. The trampolinist is still being acted on by the Sun, moon, Earth, etc., which keep er moving along with the Earth. Without those forces acting on er, e would indeed fly off into space, not being able to maintain a rotational momentum. With backward time travel, the forces are reversed, so the same problem crops up.

Time02112, I agree with the 'perception creates reality' post, to a certain degree. There are lots of neat experiments in which the observation of results, after they've been measured, affects the measurement. A kind of uninformative backward-travelling information. I doubt it happens on the macro scale, though.
Oh really Raz (slight chuckle)
I Guess we'll just have to see about that hughh?.....Only "Time" will tell!
That's of course if it has'nt yet "Already" done so. (Ahem...)
We assign to every pount of the space-time continuum four numbers, x1, x2, x3, x4 (co-ordinates), which have not the least direct physical significance, but only serve the purpose of numbering the points of the continuum in a definite but arbitrary manner.

Would you agree with this? Would you also agree that if inertial properties are maintain when displacement occurs in any three dimensions, then these same inertial properties will be maintained when displacement occurs in all four dimensions?
Plausibility of Time Travel

This might seem like a subject of Science Fiction, but it encourages a lot of thought in matters both physical and philosophical. A recent paper in Scientific American discussed whether time travel is indeed feasible and why current physical and philosophical objections don't preclude the possibility of time travel. I'll attempt to describe how they deal with the objections here and explore the plausibility of time travel.

Imagine the outcry about the waste of tax-payers' money if it were known that the National Science Foundation were supporting research on time travel. For this reason scientists working in this field have to disguise their real interest by using technical terms like "closed time-like curves" that are code for time-travel.

-Stephen Hawking
Well, Time~Master, would the inertial properties of something be changed if it suddenly reversed direction in the x-axis? Yes. Would they be changed if it reversed its course on the t-axis? Yes. So the time travelling would affect the inertial properties. I agree, however, that the coordinates used to locate things in spacetime are arbitrary. You can set (0,0,0,0) to be anyplace you want.

I've been thinking about time travel in much the same way ever since--not that matter morphs around a human observer, but that the human perspective observes the universe moving past us. The inseparability of space and time is reinforced by Einsteinian theory--that what we call Space and Time are only perceptual facets of a continuum. When we traverse space, we also traverse time, within the limits of a light-speed-maximum universe. Relativistic space/time theory usually bounces off modern physics students as a "given." But the inverse must be true, as well: When we traverse time, we also traverse space. The Earth of 100 years ago is far removed spatially from our Earth of today. This revelation has colored my view to such an extent that I have to scoff at most popular representations of time travel, in both entertainment and science.

Let's put this into perspective. The typical human time travel scenario follows: A.) Human builds a Time Machine. B.) Human briefly deliberates on the possible consequences of time travel. C.) Against all logic, human hops into the Time Machine and takes a spin. D.) Human emerges in the future or past on Earth to find a radically different society, and so attempts to alter human outcome. Ho-hum. This is the basic outline for virtually every human time travel fantasy yet concocted.

The problem is, it can't happen that way. Here's why: Should we physically defy Time, we necessarily create a new miniature universe outside of this space/time continuum (an alternate-time-effect). This is essential if we are to retain any sense of continuity; otherwise, we would never know if our time traveling efforts were successful. However, in defying Time, we have also defied the rest of spatial physics--including gravity.

So, what force is causing our Time Machine to adhere to Earth's surface as we move forward or backward in time? How do we step into a Time Machine in 20th Century Topeka, Kansas, and emerge in Topeka, Kansas, 100 years in the past or future?

The answer is, we don't. Instead, the moment we activate our fiendishly complex Time Machine, we sidestep physical law, becoming a stationary non-entity relative to the rest of the cosmos. We are unaffected by macro-gravitation. When and if we finally re-enter normal space/time, the Earth is nowhere to be found, nor is the rest of our solar system. Depending on the intensity and duration of our "time warp," we may find ourselves deep in interstellar space--with no recognizable constellations to guide us home--or even outside of the Milky Way altogether, lost in the intergalactic void.

At this point, we come to fully appreciate the expanding universe theory, and we realize that time travel is not all it's cracked up to be. Whatever reasons we had for attempting this experiment in the first place are forgotten--We have pulled over to the shoulder on the superhighway of existence, and our entire universe has moved past us while we were parked. How is it that this dreadful pitfall is never addressed in the popular consideration of time travel?

Come to think of it, the only way a time traveler might emerge from the alternate-time-effect and find himself back on Earth, at some past or future date, would be if the Earth was indeed stationary, at the virtual center of the universe. Charles Fort would have fun with this concept, I can imagine.

In fact, Fort addressed a vaguely similar topic when considering repeated skyfalls on specific points of the Earth's surface. Likening the Earth to an apple tossed skyward, Fort envisioned a chaotic flock of birds zooming in and selectively pecking only one small spot on the apple's spinning skin. This seemed such an unlikelihood to Fort that he theorized the Earth is not spinning nor moving through the universe at all--it must be stationary, at the center of a shell-like universe, and that specific locations on Earth's surface were "targeted" for repeated skyfalls over long intervals. Fort may have rendered his notions tongue-in-cheek; however, many respected scientists today--and certainly all of our science fantasy authors--subscribe to the stationary earth theory (whether or not they realize it) when pondering time travel.

I've heard several notable mouthpieces of the scientific establishment, including Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings, comment on the plausibility of time travel--breaking it down so far as quantum gravity paradox and exploding time machines and so forth--yet they always seem to return to the high school drama of some hypothetical time traveler killing his hypothetical great-great-grandfather, thus altering linear time/space. Many of the greatest minds apparently make this leap of reasoning, without explaining how or why a time traveler would arrive back on Earth at all, but presupposing that that time-travelers always arrive back on Earth--which is an Earth-centric theory.

Just from a common sense perspective, a time traveler would never meet his distant ancestors or descendents, unless the time traveler was also exceptionally gifted in interstellar navigation and was in possession of the precise spatial coordinates of Earth, relative to the rest of the expanding universe, for a precise Earth date and time (in addition to possessing an interstellar propulsion system). That's one tall order. The much more difficult aspect of time travel is finding your way home.

According to more than a few theorists in the Quantum Gravity vision of Time, "particle" is our perceptual high-speed "snapshot" of where we are at any given point in Time. Being that apparent sub-atoms exist from the beginning of the universe to the end in one long, coiled, synchronously-conscious entity, they must pass through a diversity of incarnations, from slime-to-leaf-to-animate. So the molecules and atoms and sub-atoms that make up our bodies and brains, and which we perceive as "in existence at this point in time," are actually recycled through many different animates and inanimates over many ages.

In fact, the human body is cellularly recycled entirely every 7 years, meaning that our past and future atomic and subatomic components are out there in a compost heap beyond 7 years somewhere in the past or the future.

In short, and in defiance of the pop-logic of "Quantum Leap" (a television series in rerun), we cannot link back to our quantum past, because our quantum links were scattered around in elephant dung and cosmic dust about 7 years ago or 7 years in the future. If we are going to trace our quantum links back into the past, we must accept that our Time Traveler's atomic and subatomic components might end up scattered around in a pig farmer's field somewhere, or at the bottom of an ocean, or floating around in the halo of a comet.

I've read the Time Paradox theories wherein we can't go back before the creation of the Time Machine itself; but it's worse than that. Until such time as we accept that humans are molecularly and atomically and sub-atomically recycled on a regular basis, about every 7 years, the mechanical aspect of time travel is a moot point.

I recognize that I am, of course, as guilty of three-dimensional thinking in my approach to Time Travel as anyone in Entertainment and popular Science. This realization came home when I finally tried to define what Time Travel means to us, as a species obsessed with Time Travel. The definition at which I arrived was peculiar, to say the least: That Time Travel is a process of human thinking which defeats human intellectual growth and, ultimately, is an evolutionary dead-end for the human race.

To understand how I arrived at that definition, we need to step back momentarily, in time, as it were. Time Travel is Mankind's oldest fantasy (perhaps older than lechery, for we humans have a tendency to envision the consequences of our indiscretions before we act). For example, I can picture an injured Neanderthal male of 35,000 years ago, thinking in his own way: "If only I hadn't body-blocked that giant sloth..." Regret is, without a doubt, the source of our collective obsession with Time Travel. We dream of time travel in terms of bettering our present condition: "If I could turn back time.." or "If I had that to do over..." and "If only I'd known in advance..."

Indeed, regret is one reason for our survival as a species, as we consistently strive to correct our past blunders through systems of education and recording our blunders, as we will, for posterity. By and large, our dreams of traveling in time are necessarily focused dreams of regret, of altering the past, and sometimes of retrieving "inside information" of the future, thus bettering our present condition.

Except that instantaneous "bettering"--provided through forays into the past or future--could be the worst of mistakes. In everyday life, we can easily imagine better societies, better lives, and we regularly work towards the better goals; but to pursue an instantaneous Renaissance through Time Travel is a fatal endeavor. When we circumvent the human learning process, we short-circuit human nature and light the fuse of culture shock. Alvin Toffler commented on such "Future Shock" in a way, but he was commenting on a vertical technology curve far outpacing the human learning curve... As far as I can see, there's no such thing as human technology outpacing human learning. These concepts are mutually-balancing. When I speak of "culture shock," I refer to the collision of cultures, such as when Rockefellers smash into the Amazon, for instance, destroying whole unprepared aboriginal cultures in the pursuit of Rockefeller goals.

Fracturing and demolishing whole cultures through our physical and conceptual intrusion is no work of fiction. If anything, our fictional ventures into Time Travel are dangerous, in that modern audiences take this rather seriously and so model their behavior and popular understanding of physics aft er it. I shudder to think that, IF we humans ever manage a way to defy time, our representatives will have grown up on a diet of "Back to the Future," "The Terminator," "Sliders," "7 Days" and such fictional like. Somehow, it causes me to hold more dearly the simple premise of "The Time Machine," with Rod Taylor, wherein we only had to ponder "Which three books would you take with you?"

Copyright 1999 by The Anomalist.
Old Post, but thought provoking.

I still had the time-traveller idea in my head when I asked those questions, so they're a bit skewed that way. Anyway,
1. Sure, this works for a trampoline jumper, but it doesn't carry into the time travelling scenario. When one party's t is negative, which do you use?

3. Same deal. The trampolinist is still being acted on by the Sun, moon, Earth, etc., which keep er moving along with the Earth. Without those forces acting on er, e would indeed fly off into space, not being able to maintain a rotational momentum. With backward time travel, the forces are reversed, so the same problem crops up.

Time02112, I agree with the 'perception creates reality' post, to a certain degree. There are lots of neat experiments in which the observation of results, after they've been measured, affects the measurement. A kind of uninformative backward-travelling information. I doubt it happens on the macro scale, though.

I'd like to share my imagination in regards to the questions.

1. Is it really the 'change' in 't' or the temporary absence of it?

2. Same deal, isn't motion dependant on 't'?
-Wild thought, perhaps it's not 'travelling' (forward, reverse) in time so much as the idea above.
If it's all perception, that is. Take something like a 0-D particle, and it's emergence in this context.
I'm not sure why, but I imagine something large, like a craft going at the speed of light and coming to an utter full stop without change in speed (great visualization at least lol).

(Not to mention from my experience, I've been in a head on collision at over 100km/h with no seatbelt - I'll agree that under certain circumstances perception can change immensely).