Jimmy

How it works?

My time machine "The Light Speed Eagle" is only capable to go to a future date and it almost completely relies on mathematics to get it there. For example if you wanted to travel four years in the future you would multiply four times the distance of a light year. (5,869,713,600,000) Just so you know a light year is the distance light travels in one year, so if light travels at 186,000 miles/second then the solution for finding the distance that light travels in one year would be…

186,000 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25

This mathematical problem equals 5,869,713,600,000 or the distance traveled by light in one year. The reason you would have to know about light speed and light years is because it time equals distance so if you would travel a four year journey in 7.8 seconds (which is how long it would take you to travel four years distance at light speed) you would arrive back at earth… only the four years that you skipped would pass on earth making you four years ahead of time. But there are some other things that I did not mention, for instance in order to get back home from you light speed journey you would have to turn around at two years distance or you will go farther in time than you expect. Plus half way to each two-year distance you would have to reverse your engine or you will fly passed your stopping point. The only way I believe you can create this power is through nuclear fusion also known as nuclear energy. I first though that I would fuse hydrogen and helium like the sun does…but then I though it would take up too much space because of a reactor's gigantic size. So I decided to choose another course of action. An atomic reaction would power my massive ship into the future. In a super-strong titanium prism one piece of pure Plutonium will be forced and held together causing a controlled atomic reaction that will be released in several bursts. This will power my ship to the speed of light. The space ship will also have two R2 space engines for maneuvering at low speeds. Another problem would be navigating at light speeds, easy solution…an on board super-computer would plot a course even before the ship moves so that any navigational movement will be handled by the computer. The ship will be created in earth's atmosphere because it is harder to lunch from earth than it is from space. My ship is NOT designed to enter earth's atmosphere so an X20 or a free-fall spacecraft will descend to earth from the "Light Speed Eagle". Problems like G-force are actually no problem at because by the time the G-force multiples your journey is all ready over. If you have any questions about the "Light Speed Eagle" or time travel please ask me.

This was a project assigned in science class, we had do draw a time machine...but i went a little farther with it. Please Give me your input.

if you dont get an A call me and i will personally come and bitch slap your teacher !

Actually I recieved an A plus...out of 25 points, I got 40.

i think that u can't time travel. i herd that if u put a clock on a fast plane, and the same clock on the gorund, after the plane has flown around for a long time, it comes back with differnt time as the time on the clock on the ground. the time has either slowed down or speade up either way, the person on the plane has not gone into the futre or the past but has stayed in the present.

also if u looked at the stars u would see the light as it was when the light left the star.ifu were a million light years away from the star then u would see the start as i were a million light years ago. no1 has time traveld but u could see the past.

just a lil thought

Hi,

Well actually the person in the plane WOULD have travelled in time, but the problem is that the difference is only a few thousands of a second... So you hardly notice it ;).

Bye!

Crisp

Well...again you would have to define time...people time travel every day by crossing the international date-line or passing throughout different time zones. Lets say you take a picture of the closest galaxy...I think it is Andromeda. If Andromeda is 5,000 lightyears away then you have taken a picture of Andromeda 6.3 sec. away. The solution is one lightyear or 5,869,713,600,000
multiply by 5,000 ... then divide the answer by 186,000 or the speed of light in seconds. So knowing this you may realize that by beating light you just might beat time.

people change time zones everyday doesnt mean that they change time from everyone else.u still can see them, but u cannot see someone from the past, so u can slow time and maybe speed it up, but ur still in the same time line as everyone else.

my point is that it may have been on a thousands of a secound, but if taken 2 the extream, by flying at light speed then the differnce between ur time and the time at light speed would b noticbly, but still u havent left our time line, just a slowed down version?

I do understand what you are saying, but to be perfectly honest I think you're wrong. Light is the fastest moving oject in the universe known to man, therefore it sets the ultimite speed limit. So if you were to go faster than light-speed then you would travel throughtout time into the future because distance equals time and time equals speed, I do think you brought up a very good point and it does question my theorys...if you would like to we can go farther into this please do.

Time and space are woven into the same fabric.If you could travel at the speed of light, there would no longer be any distance to travel. You would arrive at your destination instantaneously because of the contraction of space.

Hi Shaman1301,

The distance would shorten, but to an outside observer, it would also take you an infinite amount of time to get there due to time dilatation ;)..

Bye!

Crisp.

yes but how do we know that light is the fastest speed there is.of course it is the fastest knowon 2 man, but does that mean it is un-think-a-bul that an object could go faster?

the way i think u could go faster than light is by using an masize gavity force. for instance black holes bend light and time, so could u not use this example 2 bend the speed and time u were traving at and go faster than light?????

wouldent find going further, but i reply on here as often as i get the chance 2.

Hi ogster,

Around 1890, there was an experiment that tried to accelerate electrons as fast as possible. It was noted in this experiment that increasing the energy would at first increase the electron's speed (as expected). But the higher the energies, the less the speed increase, until at one point, the electrons seemed to have reached some sort of "maximum speed". After comparing the measured "maximum speed" it was found that it was just below light speed.

This doesn't prove that faster-than-light travel is impossible, but it does indicate that "regular matter" seems to have an upper limit to its speed.

Now, sooner or later I expect Tachyons or similar entering the discussion here: many efforts have been made to detect particles going faster than the speed of light (in vacuum). This is usually done by looking for Cherenkov radiation (from the moment a particle goes faster than the speed of light in eg. water, it starts emitting radiation to get slowed down (nature's mechanism of trying to prevent FTL travel?). This radiation can quite easily be detected -- sidenote: the speed of light in water is lower than the speed of light in vacuum, so there's no "real" FTL travel here).

Bye!

Crisp

ok.

another thought, when an electron has changed an energy level, we canot see where it goes, and at how fast it goes at. maybe the way 2 go faster is not by having more energy, but moving from 1 energy level 2 another????

Hi ogster,

It's true that we cannot exactly see the electron jump from one energylevel to another. From a theoretical point of view, you would expect the electron - or better formulated, it's spreaded wavefunction (modulus squared) - to move further away from the nucleus, but the uncertainty limit makes it a bit hard to look at.

From fluorescence experiments (when an atom absorbs light and re-emits it) you can estimate that the timescale for electron processes is typically something of 10^-15 seconds. Therefor, it is usually said that electron excitations from one energy level to another happen more or less in that timescale. This is quite a generalisation may I add ;).

And last but not least: it has been observed that elektrons can tunnel through a potential barrier. Recent experiments suggest that this tunneling effect takes place at speeds apx. 4 times the speed of light. This is just to mention that we're still not really 100% sure what the microscopic world is all about... And that knowledge could prove to be necessary if we ever want to travel at high speeds.

Bye!

Crisp

from dark raven @ jimmy james,
re: 'The Light Speed Eagle'

hi jimmy, i am just asking about your school project,
in it you say that g-force is no worry, because by the time it multiples the journey is over, but even though the journy is over, wont the g-force soon catch up with you like with and aroplain, whene it breakes the sound barrer, the sound comes after it, but after the plane slows down it catches up with it again?

i hope you could anwser this question, and i would like to say v well done on it any way.

my e-mail is.......... dan74656@lycos.co.uk

hope to hear from you soon, live long and prosper, dark raven:)

well that is as far as my knowdge goes, all i can say now is that nobody knows what happens 2 electrones when they change energy levels, but i am shore that they travel faster than light, maybe even faster than time?

When travelling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, is one really time travelling? Or is it merely an astronomically energy-expensive form of suspended animation (albeit you're conscious)?

At least from the point of an observer anyway.

Now my question.

Supposing that time travel by humans is possible, which view of the timeline is most favoured: That of a linear timeline, or the parallel "many worlds" view?

Forgive my ignorance here but I have a question. Why do we believe that anything special would happen if we exceeded the speed of light? For example...when we increase the velocity with which we can travel on land, nothing happens other than getting from point A to B quicker. Wouldnt we just reach our spacial destination quicker than the person travelling at a speed slower than light? Why would these instances be different?

<img src="http://www.webpromotion.com/anim/stock01/white/01_21_w.gif" border="0" alt="">

TAP-TEN Research Websites...
http://Tap-Ten.org
http://server3.ezboard.com/bmagisystems

TAP-TEN Research Photo Album
More will continue to be added latter...
http://www.smartgroups.com/pictures/openalbum.cfm?GID=613794&AlbumID=810553&Layout=L

Time Travel Research Center
Interview with Dr. David Anderson@Frankfurt, Germany http://www.time-travel.com/timetech.htm

Time Travel Research Center
http://time-travel.com

TWF's & CTC's
(Time Warp Fields & Closed "Time-Like" Crves.)
Time Warped Fields & Closed Time-Like Curves go hand in hand my friend...
. Tipler first described a working "time machine" through his theory of massive rotating spheres. http://www.geocities.com:0080/Area5.../5763/time.html

Certain types of black holes also exhibit the "time travel" abilities of Tipler cylinders. Kerr was one of the first to describe the dual event horizons of a rotating black hole. As with Tipler's cylinders, it was possible to travel on a "time-like" trip through a Kerr black hole and end up in a different world line without being squished by the gravity of the singularity. http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/
fall98/ast1002/section4/blackholes/fig11-
13/fig11-132.htm http://qso.lanl.gov/~bromley/nu_nofun.html http://www.leonllo.freeservers.com/blackworm.html http://www.astro.ku.dk/~cramer/RelViz/text/geom_
web/node4.html

The mass and gravitational field of a microsingularity can then be manipulated by "injecting" electrons onto its surface. By rotating two electric microsigularities at high speed, it is possible to create and modify a local gravity sinusoid that replicates the affects of a Kerr black hole.

More can be viewed from this archived post at the following Link...
http://www.xone.net/tti/board/ubbhtml/Forum1/HTML/000505.html

just another brief note...
it has been discovered that there is a direct correlation between the human bio electric curcuit, and EMF/EMR and their interaction between these outside influences.
examples would be the recent scientific discoveries of remaining traces of electro-magnetic "signatures" left behind in areas once inhabited, or visited frequently, by someone whom was once at a particular place for any extended period of "Time"

Now more importantly, if you were to look deeper into particle science, and explore the correlation of these EMF signatures with Time~Travel into the past cycles of any given world-line, you might also discover that this is a key element crucial to being able to find pre existing components of any past Time-Line that once was, but no longer exhists as was in the present.

Perhaps I may be "Reaching" here, yet again if we knew hwat we were doing, it wouldn't be called research now would it? moreover without research, and probing for these answeres, we may never know without.


<img src="http://www.webpromotion.com/anim/stock01/white/01_21_w.gif" border="0" alt="">

hum......

DAZE> thats if time was linear.going back in time, may take u 2 a point that was from another time line differnt 2 ours.whos 2 say that by going forward or back in time would we b going in our time.

PABU> well for starters, when traving in a car at high accleation, u fell a slight puss on u as the car goes faster.times that by the speed of light, and u get a very big squeeze. some people belive that light is the fastest speed, and experimence that have tryed 2 move an object faster than this have been unsusful, (electrions).

hope that answers ur questions.

by the way this is just my thoughts, don't take these as true facts, have a look 4 urselfs.

I just thought you kids would enjoy this one...

Enter The "STAR CHAMBER "
Experimental Time Travel Website ...IS TIME TRAVEL POSSIBLE? Is it possible to construct a machine capable of travelling into the past?. The development of a totally new form of teleportation, called the Star Chamber, will attempt to put this theory to the test !!

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/ftadefy


<img src="http://www.webpromotion.com/anim/stock01/white/01_21_w.gif" border="0" alt="">

heres a question 4 those of greater knowledge than i.
if a photon is relased from an electron that has changed energey levels, on perpusly relasing a photon, then using magnick fileds to fous this photon like the way the tv does it with electrons. instead of just the 1 photon meny are relesed at one time, fousing all these photons in a stright line, would u not have just made an photon gun?like an electron gun, but with photons. and as photons are packets of energy, would u not produce a future like gun?????

just a lil thought?

Hi ogster,

I don't think that would work. There are some problems with focussing photons using electromagnetic fields:

First of all, we are not yet entirely sure what photons exactly are: there are still some experiments going on trying to determine whether photons really are particle-like and that the famous interference effects are simply caused by quantum interference. The last time I heard of such an experiment was two years ago, but I never heard any results about it. It could turn out that light perhaps has a radial spreading wavecharacter (emitted by a point source) and that it manifests itself as a single entity, a photon, anywhere around the sphere of radiation. If this is the case, it could be hard to focus the entire radiation sphere to "bend" to a direction of choice. If anybody has any answers to this problem, be sure to mention them here.

Assuming photons have a particle-like character, there's a second problem of charge: photons do not have charge, and this makes it very hard for them to interact with electromagnetic radiation. But since photons have a spin magnetic dipolemoment, they will respond to electromagnetic radiation, only not in a conventional way, the photons would need a non-uniform, focussing magnetic field. Problem here is that magnetic dipole interactions are several orders of magnitude smaller than regular electromagnetic (Coulomb/Lorentz) interactions.

Also, because they move fast, it would require *large* magnetic fields to bend them just slightly, also something that is not practical.

Fortunately, somebody already invented a photongun. Today they call it a LASER ;).

Bye!

Crisp

just a little question, what determines which atom is which. is it the number of electrons which surround it, or the protons, neutrons and electrons?

Hi Ogster,

I am not quite sure I understand what you mean. If you refer to two identical atoms, then there's no way of distinguishing them (you cannot label one of the two atoms).

If you refer to the division of elements (Copper, Gold, Silver, ...) then it is the number of protons that determine the element. This is just a definition with some reasoning behind it: the number of protons is related to the number of electrons in a neutral atom (there are just as many electrons as protons). Since the basic properties of elements (as first discovered by chemicists in the 1700's) are dominated by electron-behaviour, it is reasonable to use the number of protons or electrons to distinguish the elements. The number of protons was choosen because removing electrons of atoms appearantly didn't drastically change the behaviour (if you heat up mercury to a high-temperature gas, it's still mercury, even though some electrons have been removed from the atoms).

Bye!

Crisp

leaving the subject of time speed 4 a mo, is it possible 2 change the number of protons in an artom? by doing this would u not change what the atom is (coper, iron ect..)?

Hi ogster,

Yes, it is possible to change the number of protons in a nucleus. But it is not as simple as pouring some potions together and waiting for the result (i.e. it is not a chemical reaction).

I am not entirely sure on the way they change the number of protons, but I suspect they bombard a nucleus with protons (if you want to raise the number of protons) or with neutrons (if you want to lower the number of protons by letting a neutron knock one out).

Some nuclei automatically raise their protonnumber (this is called beta-minus radioactive decay, a neutron gets converted to a proton in a nucleus). The other way around is also possible: a nucleus can change a proton into a neutron, thereby lowering the protonnumber (this is called beta-plus decay).

Bye!

Crisp

so if u were 2 change the protones and electrons in an atom strucher, would u change say a copper into a iron (gold out of lead?)

Your time travel experiment is great or paper, but in real life it will never work. You can't travel at the speed of light. A smarter, slightly more realistic way of time travel would to use two blackholes, and connect them to create a worm hole. By warping space you could travel a huge distance, and time in fact by entering one.
Space and time are interwoven, like folding a sheet of paper in half you can walk from the "top" to the "bottom" of the page quickly because the distance is smaller. Once you've got to point B, you unfold it, space and time return to normal and you end up somewhere else. Because of time-dilation in extreme gravity your trip would seem instant but to outside observers it may take years.
To modify the wormhole time machine you just make one hole in space-time, make another hole behind or near your starting point connect them and climb through. You could theoretically pop out of the second hole before you left the first one. Obviously this would take another few centuries or millennia to figure out but this is how it would be done.

Hi ogster,

To get off-topic one more time ;),

Yes, it would be possible to change lead to gold if you'd like. Unfortunately, this whole proces costs more than the actual gold, so you wouldn't really gain anything. These kind of experiments are especially interesting for the studies of exotic nuclei (like 5He, or the newly discovered elements 116, 118, ...).

Bye!

Crisp

Time~Travel can be "Tricky Busines" !!!
perhaps something here may be of pertaining, or useful information...
<IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0></span><br>

Many Worlds Websites:
The Everett Interpretation: Many Worlds
A good beginners guide to the "Many Worlds" Interpretation.
http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm

Many Worlds Quantum Theory: http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/ManyWorlds.html
Another good webpage on the "Many Worlds" Intrepretation and quantum theory.


New Links Found
The physics of Time Travel by Dr. Michio Kaku
Beginners guide to Time Travel at: How Stuff Works
http://mkaku.org

Scientific American: Beam Me Up!
An article on verfiying the principle of quantum teleportation. http://www.sciam.com/explorations/122297teleport


Time by Charles Muses:
http://www.cheniere.org/time/index.html

Time Twister: New Scientist
A new article on time travel that appeared in a recent issue of the New Scientist Magazine.

Science-Related Sites
Alexander V.Frolov. Faraday Lab Ltd: Alexfrolov
http://alex.frolov.narod.ru/ch-paper.htm

Clifford A. Pickover Website: Pickover
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/home.htm

David Deutsch's Homepage:http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html

Julian Barbour Website: Julianbarbour.com

Stephen Hawking's Website at: http://www.hawking.org.uk

Check out this page on the latest theories on field propulsion systems at: http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf


Time-Travel Related Sites
Chernobr's Space Transportation System: Chernobrov
Chernobr's STS & Time Travel papers also at a Russian websitehttp://alexfrolov.narod.ru/chernobrov.htm


John Gribbins paper on Time Travel at: http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/Home/John_Gribbin/time-trav.htm#time_travel

Time-Travel Websites
Steve Preston's Time Travel Website: http://freespace.virgin.net/steve.preston/Time.html

Time Travel Institute at: http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/

Time Travel Research Center at:
http://www.time-travel.com

Interview with Dr. David Anderson@Frankfurt, Germany
http://www.time-travel.com/timetech.htm


Papers & Articles on Time Travel
Backwards to the Future: New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com

Hawking's Leature on Time Warps http://hawking.org.uk/pdf/warp.pdf

John Gribbins paper on Time Travel at: http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/Home/John_Gribbin/time-trav.htm#time_travel

Quantum Evolution: unisci

So you think time travel is impossible, eh!: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~teviet/timetravel.html

Time Travel Fact or Fiction: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/time_travel.html

Time Twister: New Scientist
Time Warps:
http://www.data-matrix.com/hp/tremor/twarps.html

Wormholes & Time Machines: http://www.dd.chalmers.se/~f93jojo/sidan2.htm

Quantum Teleportation
IBM Research & Quantum Teleportation: http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

Quantum Teleportation Research at Caltech: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html

<center>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tapten/join">
<img src="http://groups.yahoo.com/img/ui/join.gif" border=0><br>
Click to subscribe to tapten</a>
</center>

<img src="http://ettracker.hypermart.net/asign.gif"></a> <a href="http://ETtracker.tripod.com"><br> Visit my associate’s website</small></B></font></a><br> <font size="-1"><small><clock></clock></small></font> </BODY> </HTML>

Remember,
You Saw it here!
<img src="/images2/sciforums/sciforums2_1.gif" width="188" height="50" border="0" alt="sciforums.com"></a></td>

time travel isn't possable yet but probable and makes sence considering Einstiens theory and how light speed works. lets say you are traveling light speed toward a nieboring star to you it may seem only 20 years have passed but back home on earth its been about 200 years so it is very probable for travel into the future faster but going back is what could get very tricky going into the past may not be possable at all.

wants to know -
if like u said time travel is inpossible, then wouldent travling at the speed at light also be inpossible?if u could travel at the speed of light then u would time travel, thus 20 years here would be 200 years there, but as u said u can't time travel so i don't think ur theory would work?

crisp -
yes but once u have prfected doing it becomes less expensize, like manufacutaring a car,2 make it once would cost a lot of money but once u have a factor line,making the car becomes inexpenisive from the cost 2 start off, then after a few cars have been sold u gain a profit. would u not?

ok,last time that i get off the subject

well what I mean is that would be the only way is to go at the speed of light to you 20 years past but back here at normal flow 200 years past. and I believe it because einstien was no stupid man. but going into the past I figure is not possable

inorder for anyone to time travel wouldn't it require that the future, present, and past exist at the same time? i mean, you can't travel to the future if it doesn't yet exist, can you? and likewise, in order to travel to the past it still has to be there right?
what is everyone's thoughts on this?

working on the theory that time isnt linear and that everything happens at once (quantam theory),u could go to any point in any time. kinda like a ball, and not like a stright line.

well i think thats how it works
any1 else?

<IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0></span><br>
The Unknown Time~Traveller
You Gotta See This! "(@^@)" http://stream.anomalies.net:8080/ramgen/ufo/jump1.rm
(Requires "Real Player")

I time travel every night. I close my eyes at night and find myself moving forward in time about 7 hours!

Some people say what is impossible today can be possible someday. Here is my question. Given all the technology in the world, can you create US dollar bills that can not be considered counterfeit? The answer is NO without US governments permission because of the serial numbers. But you can create gold out of lead or diamonds out of coal (Carbon).

I think, you can move through space but not time with respect to the observer. If you teleport yourself to a planet in Epsilon system, and have a tachyon telephone, you can call home and the time will be the same GMT (Galactic Mean Time). That means no "matter" will travel faster than light but any massless energy (information) pulse can - to make your telephone call.

This theory will hold true in this galaxy only. If you go to another Universe, all bets are off. So do not waste your time on time...work on teleportation (see the other thread on the subject...)- that is possible and useful.

<IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>
You might find additional references here...
Speed Of Light (Physics)
http://www.what-is-the-speed-of-light.com

TAP-TEN Featured in upcomming film "CHRONOTRIP"

Chronotrip, the second documentary feature from Jeff Cioletti and Far Away Discourse Productions, explores the science, science-fiction, and metaphysics of time travel. The film combines the perspectives of
physicists, philosophers, psychics, and science fiction writers, actors and fans, as it seeks to answer the fundamental question: What is time?

TAP-TEN Research Foundation will be featured in this upcomming film "Chronotrip"
(We're mentioned in Jeff's "Production Diary" archived on Monday, July 9, 2001)
http://www.fadproductions.com

I have been gone for a while so I haven't been attending to my post, but now that I am back I will reply to the many messages my post reciveved.
Okay first of all to Mr. Dark Raven now that I think about it myou are right, the g force would catch up to you, but I must say would the ng force catch up to your space craft or your body? Anyway
next post... Pabu: um... nothing special happens when you reach light speed you would simply cheat time it won't be like some galatic miracle. It would be somthing that only a computer would know if it was succesful. Next subject Mr. thecurly1...
where do I start? um now it is not possible, but does that mean it won't be fifty years from now.
Okay black holes are AT THE TIME not even truley proven to exisit, but lets say we know for sure that they do... I've said this before and I like they say in the movies "I'll say it again" to pass though a black hole you will have to go though a procees called spagatifacation (you are stretched out a lot) now I don't know how your body feels about this, but I wouldn't enjoy nor will I survive it. I think a lot about time travel I think I relized that time travel won't be used for traveling throught time, but to travel in general.
If anyone is seriosly intersted in this subject I suggest you read a breif history of time by stephen hawking...bye

<IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>
JJ, as you said..."Okay black holes are AT THE TIME not even truley proven to exisit, but lets say we know for sure that they do"... Oh But they "DO" indeed! where have you been lately? moreover i sure would love to hear you explain this misnomer!

We also have a new Link up @ the "Star Chamber" website, just scroll down on the "weblinks" selection and you'll also see our banner there...
(TAP-TEN Research)
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/ftadefy/links/weblk.htm

Forgive me if I am wrong. Black Holes
The only way we could find out if they really do
exist then we would have do send out probes, that would analiyzse the so-called Black Hole----off the subject... I do belive that somthing of that nature (I mean black holes) does exist, but no probes have been sent out and you can't see a Black Hole, but you can see the effects of one. For example... If a group of planets or objects are orbiting empty space, you could say that this is proof of a black hole. This has occured too. But to my knowlege (which is limited along with my age) Black holes existence are based on theory. the defonition of a theory is ...an idea based on observations. An experiment is used to prove the theory is true. And I haven't heard of any experiment. I would like to note that I do belive there are black holes but they tenically haven't been proven to exist...yet.

<IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>
"It would take so much energy to accomplish just a minut effect of time travel"
("I don't see how it could be done."
*Alright, I guess it's a fair assumption that it would take a great ordeal of powerful energy perhaps equatable to that of planets, or the sun perhaps, however it may be done by extracting those powerful energy bursts right from the quantum vaccum of space! How? try using Electro-Magentic Field focusing techniques for starters! believe it, or not, this is being done as I wright this message because somwhere in a quiet discussion with a PA. based research group, they are in the development stages of negotiating contractual arrangements with other private companies to jump on this conceptual module' to design, and construct actual working prototypes of this concept-to-prototype EMF conducive constrictor plasmatron infusion reactor, to produce limitless amounts of overunitized power from a single generator that can provide sufficient power to run an entire 12 story hotel, or a small home, and the generator itself may vary in size from that of something the size of a 4x4 pickup box, to the size of a shoebox.
(Kiss fossil fuel consumption to generate electricity Goodbye!)

"I believe it was Thorton that said it would take more than a hundred years of gathering potential energy from all of Earth's sources to manipulate time. I guess through future technology it might happen."

Not necessarily so! (let me explain)
the earth itself generates a combination of strong & weak subatomic particle collisions that eminate upwards from within it's core of molten metals, as they rise they gather electromagnetic current in the form of EMF radiation that spews outward, and engulfs the planet forming what is known by many physicists as the earths "Electro-Magentic Energy Grid" there are available electroencephlagraphic meter devices that work like metal detectors, or radiation geiger counters to pick up readings eminating from within this EMF grid to detect with percision, (compiled with GPS technology) to read the strongest EMF signals being transmitted which fluctuate in pulses at a rythimistic harmonic frequencies @ 12hrtz. the tricky part is synchronizing your device to chime within similarly percise variables to that of which is being transmitted from within this EMF grid, once you have succeded, you might open a hole that will increase the density without increasing in mass into an infinitive quantum dot. It is through these methods we intend to open a potal through the quantum vaccum that should also prove to have multiapplicationary functionality.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JimmyJames
[B]Jimmy The Time Machine!

1. Any form of travel is better than the public transport in this damn country!

2. SOL is slightly more than 186,000mph therefore you would get lost!
3. Sorry - in one of them moods!!

]:D :D :D

I met Paco Ahlgren about six months ago. He's smart as hell. He's not crazy. I tried to ask him about it too, but he was evasive. He just smiled a lot. His eyes are peaceful -- like he knows something. It scared me, but I really liked him. He was SOOOOO nice to me. The book is scary -- especially if you've met the guy. I don't know a whole lot about physics, but when you read what he wrote, it makes it seem very real. It really made me think.

Bob Kroneger

>
> I read the book. It scared the crap out of me. I wrote to him and tried to ask him about it
> , but he won't tell anybody anything.
>
> www.ahlgren.net
> groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Discipline_Group
>
>Cheers ... Sam
>
>

> -----Original Message-----
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 1:48 PM
> > Subject:
> >
> >
> > I've been hearing so much about this algren person. Does somebody know
> > where I can find the stupid book? I'd at least like to read it.
> >
> > Christie
>
>

BK,

Are you sure you are in the right thread? Anyway, I am reading the novel. I do not understand, what the novel got to do with the author in the sense why he should be crazy? Smart as hell? That is a new one on me. I did not know "hell" is smart!

Welcome to sciforums

With all due respect to those who have spent countless hours in the disciplines of science & physics who cannot understand the plausibility to induce reversion of Time`Travel, let alone "Time~Travel" as in being generated artificially to accelerate the effects, I don't want to imply that their calculations are inaccurate per say, and they are just plain wrong however, it is perhaps that there are a variety of new existing quantum mechanics, as well as the math behind it to show this in theory that has been either missed, or overlooked that go well above & beyond the information that they have been applying, thus explains why others find it difficult to see how it "CAN" be done! A good example is that Einstein himself, although demonstrated his frustration towards the plausibility of Quantum mechanics, and expressed adamantly that he was against this new science which was considered "Fringe" in it's day, his own theory of general relativity laid down the very foundations for quantum mechanics to exist, and would not have had the necessary data to lead the way for this new science if not for his theories in the first place! Moreover on a comparative note, we are going through a lot of new developments to test these new bold theories relating to the inner workings of QM, many of them which are being applied are so new infact, most of this data is as recent as 1989, and are in the very beginning stages to develop these new prototype devices to demonstrate how it will work, and what it can do, very much like those who were involved in the early days of putting Einstein's theories to the test that lead to the development of nuclear fission, and a variety of other applications such as the A-Bomb & etc. we are now going through yet another paradigm shift which involves many of the same processes to test the abilities of Quantum mechanics, which will lend to the development of such things like Teleportation which IBM, and a few other private companies are involved in, as well as "Time~Travel" be-it "Reversion" or acceleration to a future that either represents one that closely resembles a version of our own future, or exploration of "parallel" or alternate versions as such. Just because these ideas are rejected by others, (whom I must say are perhaps in their own right correct with respect to their equations, and their formal educational backgrounds), with all due respect, it is my contention that they might be using equations that cannot adapt to show plausibility to these new concepts, yet it does not necessarily demonstrate any less plausibility for these new concepts to be demonstrable, let me explain...it is perhaps that much of the science that many others are applying here, perhaps was not adequately designed sufficiently enough to demonstrate the plausibility for such ideas, thus in order to resolve the conflict of such issues, we need to conduct more research that involves the application of Quantum mechanics, and apply the most recent data that has been gathered to pioneer new methods to demonstrate the plausibility of these new theories. A good example of the conflict of (related) issues involving the same processes that lead to the development of pioneering frontier technologies within our own history, let's compare Enrico Fermi, as to how his theories provided solutions to demonstrate the inner workings of neutrons back in 1933 which were painfully rejected by the journal "Nature" when it was first submitted there. The question that scientists were faced with during this era was, if neutrons are not composed of protons and electrons, and if there are no other electrons in the nucleus, then how are we to understand the fact that electrons are emitted by nuclei in beta radioactivity? This answer was provided of course in 1933, after the neutron was discovered, in a new theory of beta radioactivity that was developed in Rome (by none other than) "Enrico Fermi" (1901-1954) Most of what we are dealing with now in relation to quantum mechanics was not feasible until now with respect to the science that had to be conducted beforehand, some of which was involving our most recent probes launched by NASA to study the effects of these elements, and it's relationship to our own solar system that relied upon sophisticated technology that simply was not around then, and again I must emphasize that some oft this data gathered was as recent as 1989 by Chandra's X-Ray telescope, and to that even more recent, NASA's "Genesis" probe which was launched to study the theories of the "Big-Bang" as it is intended to gather particle emissions generated by our sun's solar winds. So you can see now that there are no limits at all as what we have potential to create with one exception, and that is only in respect to the limits we place upon ourselves!

Hi Time/02112

...it is perhaps that much of the science that many others are applying here, perhaps was not adequately designed sufficiently enough to demonstrate the plausibility for such ideas...

You made a good point here: it is true that new theories are almost certainly designed to keep the relation of "cause and effect" intact: the cause always has to take place before the effect. This imposes a lot of restrictions on ideas such as timetravel.

At the moment there doesn't seem to be any evidence that there is a violation of the relation of cause and effect. Nobody has been killed by a bullet that was fired in the future, ... you can think of thousands of these examples.

Apart from theories or science, there are also a lot of philosophical and logical arguments against timetravel, and this makes timetravel special. I'm not going over these arguments again (they have been mentioned here and elsewhere on the forum) but timetravel seems to lead to totally contra-intuitive ideas and paradoxes.

Perhaps one day timetravel will be a reality (theories such as general relativity leave an option with wormholes), but before we can truelly comprehend it, more philosophical than scientific work needs to be done.

Bye!

Crisp

What are spheromaks?
http://ve4xm.caltech.edu/Bellan_plasma_page/spheroma.htm
For those of interest in our "ccQts" Closed Circuit Time Stream
concept, which is best described in forming a "bubble" that engulfs the pod, or chamber around a Time~Traveller to keep them on a more direct World-Line, or continuous Time~Stream that closely resembles one of their own origin from whence they depart from, we need to study the effects of applied Quantum mechanisims within current technological discoveries, and how this relates to our own theories of the quantum universe we would like to refer to as the quantum "Multiverse" currently, this is just one good example to demonstrate our theories.
Spheromaks are plasmas with very large internal currents and internal magnetic fields that are aligned so as to be in a nearly force-free equilibrium, i.e., the currents are very nearly parallel to the magnetic fields. The spheromak equilibrium is a `natural' state since magnetic turbulence tends to drive magnetically dominated plasmas towards the spheromak state.

Spheromak technology:
Laboratory spheromaks involve very large currents, typically 100's of kiloamperes and high voltages, typically kilovolts. These currents and voltages are obtained using high energy capacitor banks which are switched in microseconds. The formation geometry is arranged such that magnetic flux cuts across the electrodes connected to the capacitor bank. This configurations generates helicity (twistedness)
in the flux tube going from one electrode to the other.
With enough helicity a spheromak is formed.

Making spheromaks:
Making spheromaks is analogous to blowing bubbles: the component of the magnetic stress tensor parallel to the magnetic field acts like the surface tension in the soap film while the perpendicular component acts like the air pressure inflating the bubble. When the destabilizing stress due to the perpendicular component overwhelms the stabilizing stress due to the parallel component, a detached spheromak breaks off.
http://ve4xm.caltech.edu/Bellan_plasma_page/spheroma.htm



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."
http://profiles.yahoo.com/vosstech

Crisp,
I was merley pointing out that many of these new cutting edge developments that "are" currently being worked on (especially Time~Travel) that apply these theories of QM, are often being hampered by the same controversial processes that were involved in many heated debates decades ago, and is rather frustrating to see so much evolutionary progression within humanity on one hand, yet very little on the other in relation to dealing with organized critics that still adamantly hold steadfast to their antiquated beliefs, and perceptions in spite of realizing that it only creates another environment in which we continue getting in our own way!

In short, it makes it even moreso difficult to aquire funding for research projects of this nature due to these continuied issues, making Time~Travel a much harder sell, let alone overunity which one would think to be more in demand, yet is seemingly met with oppression by those who would stop at nothing to ensure that such an econnomic paradigm shift of free energy would never make it to the market in the first place. (Remember what happened to Tesla!)

How can we continue to stand on the shoulders of Giants, when we are being told lies, suppressed from the truth, and lead by leaders who are only interested in our wallets?
"A country of greed, is a country in need."

<IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>
In relation to Time & Quantum mechanics, we must also remind ourselves that "Gravity" itself was just one good example pertaining to a subject thought to be well understood during the earlier part of the 20th Century based on Newtonian Physics, however one must realize that althought there was an anbundant level of enthusiasim to explore the inner-workings of our uninverse on the subatomic level, in order to learn what we were dealing with in relation to new discoveries being made, Cambridge was one of the last to agree to it, yet still heald steadfast in their antiquated beliefs in spite of proven methods to show otherwise! and to this very day we have a variety of classes being taught to our students that "omitt" the corrections to the antiquated formulas that simply were not designed to work with "Quantum Mechanics"
I strongly recommend you consider reading the following books...

"Quantum Gravity"
By: Lee Smolin
Author of "The Life of The Cosmos"
ISBN# 0-465-07835-4

"Gravitation And SpaceTime"
(second eddition)
By: Hans C. Ohanian & Remo Ruffini
ISBN# 0-393-96501-5

"Subatomic Particles"
(The Discovery Of)
By: Steven Weinberg
Nobel Laureate and Author of "The First Three Minutes"
ISBN# 0-7167-2121-X

"The Search For Superstrings, Symetry, and the Theory of Everything"

By: John Gribbon
ISBN# 0-316-32975-4

These books seemingly tie into one another, and I will often review them in my library & make connections from one pahragraph in one book, where it will be explained in more functional detail in another & visea-vesa, also I am often making connections to what has been adversley rejected in the earlier part of the 20th century, and still happening today,
simply because they did'nt read these books!!! (LMAO)

*Inquiries:
http://profiles.yahoo.com/vosstech

*Additional Referrences:
Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory
http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/about/factsheet.html

Catching the Gravitational Wave http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/about/brochure.html


gravitational waves
http://www.ligo-la.caltech.edu/Posters/poster5.html

Electromagnetic Waves versus Gravitational Waves
http://www.ligo-la.caltech.edu/Posters/poster6.html

Time travel as we define it is the ability to move between the past, present, and future at will. Knowing this we can then determine that time travel will not be and is not possible through speed, as speed could only serve to out run time or make time appear to slow. As an example, let's assume there is a car that travels at a constant speed, a constant 60mph, this car we will call time. Now, let's say you build a car that can travel at 80mph, in effect traveling faster than the constant car (time). We now put these two cars on the open interstate highway known as the time line. As the two cars travel down the interstate you will begin to notice that the car traveling at 80mph is beginning to catch and over take the car traveling at 60mph. As you can tell by this example no time travel has or can occur. The only thing that may happen is that you would be able to out run time. That is if time travels at a constant speed. If you did out run time using speed where would you, end up? Somewhere waiting for time to catch-up? Moreover, where would that somewhere be? I do not believe it is possible to wait nowhere for time to catch-up to you. The only possible way to time travel is for the future time to already exist so that you may travel to it. If time did travel at a constant speed, what would that speed be? The speed of light? This is to assume that light in some way produces or has something to do with time. We know this isn't true cause time goes on even in the dark or in the absence of light. Therefore, this now leads us to the question of what exactly is time and what produces it. The only comparison that I can make between light and time is to say that they are both frequencies or better put they are both measured in frequencies. I can also say that time is inversely proportional to energy. The more energy you put into doing something the less time it takes to do that something. Likewise, the less energy you put into doing something the more time it takes to do that something.

please help I need answers
what exactly is time?
what produces time?
am I on the right track?
and what is everyone's thoughts about my idea

Welcome to Sciforums, Beauideal. May your posts be long and varied!

You ask the questions that endless people through the ages have asked. And still do. So far the answers escape and evade us. But we are indeed closing upon better understanding of them. Prehaps we have not learned to word our questions correctly. Oft times just changing how we ask brings up associations that result in closer answers to what we seek. But in this case I do not think that is the solution. To many have already asked and we now have to be patient and await the discoveries that will lead to the answers. You bring up interesting observations with leading thoughts. I wish you well in what you seek. May your answer be in the next curve of the road.

Hi Beauideal,

I agree with Wet1 that these are fundamental questions that scientists have been asking themselves ever since the concept of time was introduced. There's one observation I'd like to make.

You said:
If time did travel at a constant speed, what would that speed be? The speed of light? This is to assume that light in some way produces or has something to do with time. We know this isn't true cause time goes on even in the dark or in the absence of light.

I disagree, light has something to do with time. We human beings experience time as a sequence of events that happen (the sun sets, night falls, sun rises - repeat ad infinitum). The sequence in which we see events happen has to do with light: since we assume that nothing can travel faster than light, the only way for us to witness an event is to see it (and not hear it for example).

In physics, this "close" relation between time and light is expressed in the lightcone (which is a cone-shaped figure in a space-time diagram that seperates events we can witness and cannot witness at a given spacetime point).

I realise this doesn't answer the question "what is time", but perhaps it sets you on the right track for your thoughts...

Bye!

Crisp

If Crisp's post got you curious about the 'lightcone' bit, you can check out the following URL

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/

It will give you a not too technical intro. to the concepts involved.

Hi Chagur,

Be sure to warn me when I get too techy ;). Thanks for the link, it looks very informative (and is one of the few sites I've ever seen on the web correctly mentioning that Galilei's principle is also a principle of relativity)

Bye!

Crisp

I've experienced that glazed, puzzled look people get too many times over the years not to want to jump in and give an assist.

Glad you don't mind. ;)

<IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>

<IMG SRC=http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/timemet.gif/>

<IMG SRC=http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/tt22.gif/>

<IMG SRC=http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/Image11.gif/>

<IMG SRC=http://home.aol.com/zcphysicsms/kerrworm.jpg/>

it's all very clear now...

lol

The Special theory of relativity and the theory of simultaneity, concerning your time-travel comment.:cool:

My thoughts

Crisp

You said:

__________________________________________________ __

I disagree, light has something to do with time. We human beings experience time as a sequence of events that happen (the sun sets, night falls, sun rises - repeat ad infinitum). The sequence in which we see events happen has to do with light: since we assume that nothing can travel faster than light, the only way for us to witness an event is to see it (and not hear it for example).

__________________________________________________ __

I do not believe that we human beings necessarily experience time as a sequence of events. Rather we human beings measure that which we refer to as time using those repeating ad infinitum events. Those events in no way produced time. A person who is born blind and never able to view a single event, still experiences time and yes they can keep track of and measure time by using a repetitive sound such as tick tock tick tock. Likewise, even a person that is born both blind and deaf will also experience time and do it without any audio or visual sensory input. This leads me to believe that time is something other than just light or even the entire Electro-magnetic spectrum. Light is a photon and no matter how instantaneous light may seem it still takes time to produce light. Therefor, knowing this, we can then say, time cannot be a product of light but rather light is a product of time. I believe time and energy to be interwoven as a time-energy spectrum. I call it a spectrum because time can be an interval as vast as space itself or sliced into an interval as small as quantum mechanics wants. Simple example: we can measure time as a month, a week, a day, an hour, a minute, a second… a nanosecond and so on, the limit is only our ability to understand.
We sometimes forget that it takes time to do anything. Simple example: baking a cake, one of the most important ingredients is time, too much time and your cake is burned, too little time and your cake is still ruined. I like to define time, as the amount of energy required to do anything.

If I am wrong please show me the error in my thought process.
thanks.

Just read the last little bit and thought I'd drop my two sense in about time.
To make it all nice and simple:
Time is the measure of the transformation of energy on a universal scale.
So long as energy is active there is time, when there is no active energy - no time.
Which is also why I've had a problem with time dialation (merely philosophical of course)

Thanks Hypnogog, that is a much nicer definition of time and fits perfectly with my personal thoughts about time. I have searched long and hard, near and far for anyone who could tell me what time is and now I believe my search is over. And now on to the process of trying to figure out how to manipulate the process of time.

Thanks

Let me precurse this by saying I know I'm probably going to get smacked hard for this but...
I think time travel using FTL is impossible on a macroscopic scale. I'm not a math geenius but, using the simplest system (d=s*t), the only way would be to divide two positive #'s and get a negative answer.
Relative time travel may be just that, relative to the observer, but taking my definition of time the universe still "ages" regardless of how fast you go. I've always had a problem with Dialation because the only way I ever see it is that the Universe itself is the Observer.

Hi all,

Beauideal,

Therefor, knowing this, we can then say, time cannot be a product of light but rather light is a product of time.

I agree, you took the point I was trying to make one step further: but in the post you refered to I was trying to point out that there definitly is a relation between light and time.

Hypnogog:
Time is the measure of the transformation of energy on a universal scale.

Ok, this definition is unfortunately as empty as the current definition of time. How would you define "energy" ?

... using the simplest system (d=s*t), the only way would be to divide two positive #'s and get a negative answer.

Unfortunately things aren't that simple anymore. I just wish they were, but I'll have to disappoint you... The theory of special relativity has thought us that time and space are interwoven and that the simple equation x = v* t no longer is valid in this vision of the universe.

[/quote]Relative time travel may be just that, relative to the observer, but taking my definition of time the universe still "ages" regardless of how fast you go. I've always had a problem with Dialation because the only way I ever see it is that the Universe itself is the Observer.[/quote]

Time dilatation is an effect that we witness everyday. If it weren't for time dilatation, we couldn't detected muons on the surface of the earth (this is *the* textbook example on time dilation, I'm sorry that I didn't come up with a more.. interesting example but I am a bit too tired now :)). In this scenario, the two "observers" are the scientist in the lab and the muon particle.

Also, the "aging" of the universe is a concept that depends heavily on your definition of the universe: most commonly it is defined to be the fabric of space-time + all matter within. Therefor, the universe cannot "age" as time is a part of the universe. What concerns the aging of the matter within the universe: this is a different situation, as now you have one piece of matter as one observer and all the other matter as second observer, consistent with the view of special relativity on time dilatation.

Bye!

Crisp

So how exactly would YOU qualitify 'energy'? Because that would certainly solve a lot of problems. As referential to other problems - I will stay relatively lconic on the subjest, except to consolidate Crisp's statement that time & light are linked: because, (unless I have been misinformed (if an infinite amount of energy is required to propel something at c (spd of light), then time must surely be intertwined with light (if you get me?).

Peace, brothers & sisters(where exactly r the girls here?)

Hi everybody,
and Hi Jimmy !
Well, Jimmy, I would like to put some ideas here, and first I would like to say that I don't believe that your space ship would ever work... As a time machine... And even if it did work, you would not be travelling 4 years in time like you said.... But a few milliseconds and I agree with Crisp on that....
Now the point for me is: Light is a " onda eletromagnetica" very pure, it is almost pure energy, it almost does not have any mass at all... So , I could say that light is a very pure, refined type of matter...
And that's why your space ship will never reach the light's speed, 300.000 Km/s, because you have all that "junk together", all that Mass, that's far from delicate, far from refined, far from pure... It's a ship it's made of steel, coarse substance.... We can build a really fast space ship, and we could use the "solar wind" as energy, so we cut off all that heavy stuff... But even, it will be far, very far from light's speed.... It will be good for travelling to further planets in our system , but not TIME !!!
TIME TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE !!! But not using a machine, a ship.... I've done it ! I've travelled in time.... Do you guys ever heard of Projeciologia ?????????.........
If you guys want to talk more about it, I'm at : canjibrinos@yahoo.com.br ....

Abraços,
To all friends all over our planet... Fighting to make it better and just...
.................................................. ...... Fab.
.................................................. ........ Brazilian friend.
:cool:

Hi everybody,
and Hi Jimmy !
Well, Jimmy, I would like to put some ideas here, and first I would like to say that I don't believe that your space ship would ever work... As a time machine... And even if it did work, you would not be travelling 4 years in time like you said.... But a few milliseconds and I agree with Crisp on that....
Now the point for me is: Light is a " onda eletromagnetica" very pure, it is almost pure energy, it almost does not have any mass at all... So , I could say that light is a very pure, refined type of matter...
And that's why your space ship will never reach the light's speed, 300.000 Km/s, because you have all that "junk together", all that Mass, that's far from delicate, far from refined, far from pure... It's a ship it's made of steel, coarse substance.... We can build a really fast space ship, and we could use the "solar wind" as energy, so we cut off all that heavy stuff... But even, it will be far, very far from light's speed.... It will be good for travelling to further planets in our system , but not TIME !!!
TIME TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE !!! But not using a machine, a ship.... I've done it ! I've travelled in time.... Do you guys ever heard of Projeciologia ?????????.........
If you guys want to talk more about it, I'm at : canjibrinos@yahoo.com.br ....

Abraços,
To all friends all over our planet... Fighting to make it better and just...
.................................................. ...... Fab.
.................................................. ........ Brazilian friend.

Hi Ankit,

So how exactly would YOU qualitify 'energy'? Because that would certainly solve a lot of problems.

I should have seen that one comming :D.... (scene where Crisp scratches is forehead)... Well ehr...

I am sure there are some nice textbook definitions on what energy is, but in the end it all comes down to this: energy is a concept that is introduced to differentiate between - for example - one object and one that moves faster. You cannot touch energy, it's something that was introduced in physics to make the framework of thinking a bit easier.

Energy is also not an "absolute" quantity. Different theories in physics have different definitions for the kinetic energy of a moving object (for example: the special theory of relativity we've been talking about defines kinetic energy in a totally different way than the classical Newtonian theories - there's some correlation ofcourse, but no perfect match).

So I personnaly would classify "energy" as one of the physical buzzwords like "entropy" (does anybody really know what that is ? :)).



hacksys_brazil,

Light is a " onda eletromagnetica" very pure, it is almost pure energy, it almost does not have any mass at all...

You could even say that it has no restmass at all (m0 = 0) because otherwise light would not be able to travel... at the speed of light :). The most accepted idea on light defines it to be small packages of pure energy (so there's no mass involved).

But then there's this "so what is energy then"-question again... if I say that light is pure energy and energy is a fictional concept, then how can there be light ? To be completely honest - I don't know. Be sure to drop me a mail if you do - I guess light and energy are just a few of those physical concepts that scientists are still struggling with today.


Bye!

Crisp

All,

The best idea I’ve seen on time travel is not really time travel at all but the ability to traverse parallel universes where each universe is out of phase with the next by a minute fraction of a second. By traversing across many universes you will effectively be traveling back or forward in time.

Now the question is which concept is more fantastic, parallel universes or time travel?

Cris

I time travel frequently. It takes me exactly one hour to get 1 hour into the future.

<IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>
Crisp, and others...

I would like to see some additional replies to this other Gentleman's posting at the Dr. Michio Kaku's "Science Forum" message-boards

http://mkaku.org
__________________________________________________ __
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The quantum theory is incompatible with theory of relativity,
do you disregard it claiming a lack of logic ?

Within theories themselves illogical facts abound: In classical physics the branch thermodynamics which treats heat and work as two incompatible entities, is in blatant contradiction with the same classical physics branch of kinetic interpretation of heat.
The theory of ligth as a wave, riding in absence of any media, is in blatant contradiction with the very defintion of a wave which intrinsic entity is the variation of a media.
And the spin of earth or any object in the universe, should quickly be put to an end by the fundamental first law of Newton (this simple overlooked fact is explained in details in my site, see ‘puzzling facts’ about spinning objects).
It turns out, that at least there is one approach which does put all this back together. And that is the timeless motion or ABSOLUTE MOTION theory.
With extremely simple concepts it also shows that the statistical aspect of quantum theory has a deeper explanation as Einstein thought himself (see paragraph named 'Muons').
Absolute motion, and theory of relativity surprisingly cohabit as explained in my site: TheTruthOfTheMatterIs.com.
As far as I understand things, the theory of relativity remains fully ‘logical’ it describes events in a manner the absolute motion theory, which considers only dependencies and describes nothing, will never do. At present the absolute motion theory is presented in the form of a few principles. At this time it is not backed by any mathematics, but even if that happens it will never compete on either theory of relativity nor quantum theory as far as description of physical events is concerned, because in the absolute motion theory the concept of ‘position’ of a point or of an object has no meaning. The interesting aspect of the ABSOLUTE MOTION theory is it clearly deleneates the scopes of relativity and quantum theories, rendering the whole of the construct of human mind logical !

Credits:
---"henrisalles"

Forum
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/michiokakusscienceforum

Website
http://TheTruthOfTheMatterIs.com

Hi Time/02112,

I'm going to answer here, not because I fear a possible reply from any of these guys, but simply because I don't feel like subscribing to yet another forum like there are 1000's of a kind (sciforums is quite unique, that's why I like it and why i dislike others ;)).

Anyway, here goes for the reply:

Within theories themselves illogical facts abound: In classical physics the branch thermodynamics which treats heat and work as two incompatible entities, is in blatant contradiction with the same classical physics branch of kinetic interpretation of heat.

Wrong. There's no contradiction whatsoever, there's even a connection between thermodynamics and the classical Newtonian physics, and this connection is called statistical mechanics.

Some history for the folks that don't know about this branch of physics: Newton developed his theory of mechanics in the 1600's. However, until the late 1800's, scientists were unable to describe things like "temperature" and "heat" in the Newtonian framework, so they created a new theory called "thermodynamics" to describe effects like metals expanding when heated etc etc... At that time, the two theories seemed unconnected - the reason why scientists weren't able to connect them was because the mathematics weren't advanced enough to do so.

Somewhere around the 1900's (a bit earlier really), the mathematical theory of statistics was formulated/perfected, and physicists used this theory to describe large collections of particles in a gas. It then turned out that the results for large collections of particles were related to the already known thermodynamical properties of gasses. So using statistics, the link between Newtonian mechanics and thermodynamics could be made (that's why this area of mechanics is called "statistical mechanics"). Statistical mechanics therefor links the microscopic world of particles with the macroscopic world of temperatures, heat, ... (these are all macroscopic variables). Probably one of the most famous results in statistical mechanics is the relation between the average kinetic energy of a particle in a gas and the temperature of a gas:

(1/2) * m * v^2 = (3/2) * kB * T

Here m is the mass of the particle, v the velocity, kB the Boltzmann constant and T the macroscopic temperature of the gas.

So you see, no contradiction, but a perfect match.

The theory of ligth as a wave, riding in absence of any media, is in blatant contradiction with the very defintion of a wave which intrinsic entity is the variation of a media.

This is exactly why scientists have long believed in the existence of ether: an invisible medium where light and other electromagnetic waves propagate in. However, since the Michelson-Moreley experiment the believe in ether has weakened, and nowadays most scientists differentiate between two types of waves: electromagnetic waves (that don't need a medium to propagate in, these consist of pure energy) and mechanical waves (oscillations of a medium).

Absolute motion, and theory of relativity surprisingly cohabit

Now this is funny: the most fundamental concept in the theory of relativity is that every kind of motion is relative, and not absolute ;).

At this time it is not backed by any mathematics, but even if that happens it will never compete on either theory of relativity nor quantum theory as far as description of physical events is concerned, because in the absolute motion theory the concept of ‘position’ of a point or of an object has no meaning.

... rendering the theory completely useless as a physical theory, since physicists in the end always want to know the position of an event or object! That's what all of quantummechanics, relativity, newtonian mechanics is about in essence: how can we describe the motion of a given object. And to know the motion, the position is ofcourse a requirement.


Bye!

Crisp

I must concur with my dear Crisp on this topic. The quantum theory and the theory of relativity not only don't contradict eachother, but conversely, compliment eachother. I will elaborate: intrinsically, the theory of relativity is how matter move in relation to eachother and that there isn't absolute motion, e=mc2 etc. and quantum theory describes the composition of matter...these two are inseperably linked, but actually achieve correlation. Invariably and invitably, I would prefer to prceive this philosophically rather than scientifically:D .

Reality is often our perception of it, argue many physicists and philosophers, ergo dictating that you have the power to make what you believe...which is obviously horseshit. Anyway, more relevantly, quantum theory describes composition, quanta and o on, whereas relativity rehashes cosmological physics in another sense...they compliment eachother because without Newton, there would be no Einstein (and Max Planck, who we haven't forgotten, who, ofcourse, introduced quantum theory):p .

Newton's theories were revolutionary in the sense that they improved physics infinitely (figuratively speaking). Einstein also did the same, but differently...he conquered physics, trangressing popular modern belief of Newtonian physics...let's be honest: Newton wasn't 100% correct. Einstein finished and polishd off Newton's theories...

To be continued (I'm outta breath)

Originally posted by Crisp

hacksys_brazil,



You could even say that it has no restmass at all (m0 = 0) because otherwise light would not be able to travel... at the speed of light :). The most accepted idea on light defines it to be small packages of pure energy (so there's no mass involved).

Crisp [/B]

Crisp, I used to think like that.... just accepting that Light's mass == 0, but ,.... Although it is very insignificant, to our "macro" World, I think it does have mass... And that " insignificant mass" it's definitely significant when talking about "micro" universe... Why am I saying that there is mass ???... First Because I believe in it, second because I saw this laddie, a scientist at MIT, saying that she was doing research to find out exactly what's the light's mass... Is it wrong ??????...

¥ PAZ ¥
Hacksys_Brazil........:cool:

Hi hacksys_brazil,

First Because I believe in it, second because I saw this laddie, a scientist at MIT, saying that she was doing research to find out exactly what's the light's mass... Is it wrong ??????...

Okay, it depends a lot on how she phrased it.

Yes, I agree: light has a relativistic mass (wrongly called "mass" by many theoretical physicists for the ease of use). Light has a momentum and this momentum adds up to the energy - or mass, using the mass/energy equivalence - of a photon. If she is researching the origin or physical meaning of this relativistic mass, then she's doing some great work. The answer to that question probably leads to the answer of the 300 year old question "what is light?".

If she is determing whether light has a restmass (and this is not the same as relativistic mass... well, not always :)) or not, then she sure is a brave lady - that means defying the pretty well established and experimentally tested theory of special relativity.

Bye!

Crisp

It seems that the topic has moved on to what is light and I know that my reply is behind the topic but I've been too busy...
First, I would like to say to Hypnogog. I think you are on the right track. Keep at it.

Now to Crisp,
Light has no more to do with time than a pair of binoculars has to do with light, when used to view an event that occurred in the light, which occurred in time. What I mean to say is that the event occurred in the light but the light occurred in time. All light was used for was to observe time and that is the only role light is used for. Light does not in anyway create time, just as the binoculars in no way created the light in which it was used to observe. All binoculars were used for was to observe the light and that is all the binoculars were used for. Light would have to somehow be responsible for the production of time in order for the speed of light to be the key to time travel. I hope I have explained myself clearly this time but I probably haven't. However, if you think I have anyway reaffirmed your idea that the speed of light is the key to time travel, then you have really, really, really misunderstood everything that I have said and for that I am disheartened.

Now as for light being pure energy? I thought the debate was still on as to weather or not light is a particle, wave, or particle-wave. As we all know light exhibits the properties of being both a particle and a wave. Now if light is at all in anyway a particle, then we all know that no matter how minute, particles still have a mass. Moreover, if light does contain particles then that would mean that light is not pure energy. The closest thing to pure energy that I can think of would be "thought." I'm not certain that pure energy could react with anything other than another form of pure energy or the source, which creates the pure energy.

A question I have is what would happen if pure energy was to interact with mass? It's kind of like asking what would happen if an irresistible force collided with an immovable object.

I would also like to ask, for those of you who believe that the key to time travel is the speed of light and also at the same time believe that it is impossible to reach the speed of light as something other than pure energy, how do you propose to ever time travel?

Somewhere recently I read that if you create a container and pass light through it and in the process freeze light in the container so that no light escapes, then you will also freeze time in the container. The freezing or slowing down of light has been tested recently. I wonder if that will show a door to time travel...

Traveling faster than light would only allow you to see the past, not put you into the future.

When you look at a star you're seeing it's past, not it's future. You can travel "faster" than time as you approach it but once there you will see it's present in real time.

Because you can't travel a negative distance, it's not possible to time travel by light.

Ben

There is something that bothers me. How can light, if it is pure energy be affected by gravity? I understand that in traveling within a media that light can be bent. Such as a prism, or reflected, such as a mirror. But in space there is a common event called light lensing. Where light is traveling through space and encounters sufficient gravity to bend it. So that you see what is behind an object. Something you could not do with out this phenomenon happening. It has been documented may times on film.
It is easy to understand how this could be if light does indeed have that minimal amount of mass. But if it doesn't then it leaves that vague doubt that something is wrong here.

Hi all,

Beauideal,

Light has no more to do with time than a pair of binoculars has to do with light, when used to view an event that occurred in the light, which occurred in time. What I mean to say is that the event occurred in the light but the light occurred in time. All light was used for was to observe time and that is the only role light is used for.

Yes, I think I have the idea of what you mean: light only exists, it can only propagate because there is something like "time".

I believe the relation is a bit more fundamental than that. I probably mentioned this before, but if you just look at relativistic effects, which all have to do with the finite speed of light, this makes some sense. People are probably tired of me using the example, but here it goes once more: time dilatation. Clocks do not run at the same speed for observers that move with different speeds in respect to eachother. The reason behind this effect is light: in order to witness this effect, you need light to travel from point a to point b, and it is because the speed of light is the same for all observers that time runs differently for every observer.

This doesn't really have to do anything with the exact nature of light...

Now as for light being pure energy? I thought the debate was still on as to weather or not light is a particle, wave, or particle-wave. As we all know light exhibits the properties of being both a particle and a wave.

Yes, and that's the key to the answer IMHO. The debate is not really about "is light a particle or a wave" but "why does light exhibit a particle and a wave property". I think light is neither, it is because our description of light is not adequate enough that we sometimes perceive the particle behaviour of light and sometimes the wave nature.

Now if light is at all in anyway a particle, then we all know that no matter how minute, particles still have a mass.

Relativistic mass, yes. Rest mass, why should it have that ? Even in the special theory of relativity light has a (relativistic) mass, but no restmass. So there's no real problem here.

I'm not certain that pure energy could react with anything other than another form of pure energy or the source, which creates the pure energy.

I can think of a couple of examples of transfering energy (I only added "pure" in one of my previous messages to indicate that light IMHO does not consist of anything else). If you slap your hand on a table, you're transfering energy from the movement to the atoms in the table, making them jiggle about their rest positions and transfering phonons within the table atomic lattice. (Phonon = energy quantum of a vibration in a system). A more simple example is heat: heat is a form of energy that can be transfered from a source (fire) to a destination.

I would also like to ask, for those of you who believe that the key to time travel is the speed of light and also at the same time believe that it is impossible to reach the speed of light as something other than pure energy, how do you propose to ever time travel?

So you basically assume that timetravel is possible, something not everybody would agree to.


Wet1,

There is something that bothers me. How can light, if it is pure energy be affected by gravity? I understand that in traveling within a media that light can be bent.

In the theory of general relativity, which can account for the effect of gravitational lensing, light follows the curvature of spacetime. As you probably already know, spacetime is curved in the presence of mass (the most famous analogy would be the rubber sheet with a pool ball on it). It is the curvature of spacetime that bends the path of light - light always travels straight in one direction on this rubber sheet (=spacetime).

Bye!

Crisp

<IMG SRC=http://www.comteck.com/~doctor/Atom.gif BORDER=0>
"Whenever you say something is not possible," Bar-Cohen said, "someone will beat you at it."
Visit us at our new website!

******"TAP-TEN Research Foundation"******
http://www.Tap-Ten.com

Regarding an earlier mail from Crisp I believe, refering to the rubber sheet theory (incontinent factor) I was always led to believe that the rubber sheet and the ball theory was caused by gravity and not light? Taking the rubber sheet, stretching it out, placing the heavier orb within it, it finds its own "hole" and settles there, disturbing the surrounding area with its gravitational depression. Now, along comes a light, travelling in a straight line, it arrives at the dense gravitational area, bends around it and continues upon its new course. Astronomers, by this method have been able to observe stars hidden behind dense gravitational fields by virtue of the bent light. Therefore surely is it not gravity causing the disturbance, not light? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hi Red Devil,

I was always led to believe that the rubber sheet and the ball theory was caused by gravity and not light? Taking the rubber sheet, stretching it out, placing the heavier orb within it, it finds its own "hole" and settles there, disturbing the surrounding area with its gravitational depression. Now, along comes a light, travelling in a straight line, it arrives at the dense gravitational area, bends around it and continues upon its new course. Therefore surely is it not gravity causing the disturbance, not light?

Yes, that's what I meant, I probably expressed it in a rather unfortunate way (something that happens every now and then ;)). I'm not really into general relativity, but if I am not mistaken, it is the mass that bends spacetime. The curvature of spacetime is perceived by us as gravity, and light (following a straight line inside the "dippened" rubber sheet) gets deviated from it's path in this more dimensional picture.

Bye!

Crisp

<IMG SRC=http://iasos.com/detalist/rol/FractalSquare.gif>
Sooner or latter, we shall find that many points of these theories do take on a strange twist of commonalities, yet the closer in ideology they become, the more distorted our observations of interconnetedness becomes as well, I just wish we could say the same for ego? but it is good to see as the more we begin to evolve, the more we begin to discover as the gap between science & philosophy begins to become more narrow, and our collective minds of shared expression becomes more broadend to expand our hightened awareness of the working universe we all dwell in.

"Please be patient, Time takes Time!"

Heat or slapping a table with your hand, neither of those is pure energy. They are both forms of mechanical energy involving mass and the transfer of energy from one mass to another. As I understood your definition of pure energy, it is energy without any mass at all. At least it was said that light is pure energy because, it contains no mass. Then it was changed to say that light had no mass at rest. I do understand why the claim is made that light has no mass, but until someone is able to contain light, weigh it and determine with a much greater accuracy that light has no mass, then I am going to have to keep an open mind as to the possibility that light does contain mass, however insignificant it may be. I personally believe that light does contain particles. I also believe that all particles contain mass. Who knows maybe we will some day find out that the speed of light is the max speed that any mass can reach.
Now as far as freezing light goes. If you could freeze light all you would be doing is basically taking a picture of an event, not freezing time. As an example, lets say a person runs past you and as this person passes you, you freeze the light that is bouncing off of the person, the person will keep running and experiencing time. The reason for this is because; all you did was freeze an image that was created by light. You did not freeze the event or time. So no, being able to freeze light would have no use in time travel. In my opinion freezing light would be no more significant than taking a photograph or hitting the pause button on your VCR while watching a movie.
As said before traveling at the speed of light will only allow you to see the light, which bounced off of an event in the past. This would only allow you to be an observer of past time not ever time travel. In my opinion, true time travel is the ability to not only go back or forward in time to witness an event, but to also become part of that event. Time traveling by using the speed of light to catch up to the light of a past event and view that event is equivalent to just video taping an event and watching it repeatedly. Actually, video taping an event is probably the best and only way to time travel using light.
The only thing I can say about faster than light travel is that it may, and that is a big may, get you infinitely close to time traveling and that is only because light, at least from our perspective, is infinitely close to being instantaneous. Nevertheless, as we all know something that is infinitely close, can also be considered to be infinitely far away. For example, how many numbers are there between 0 and .000000000000000001000000000000. The answer, although the number is infinitely close to 0 there is still an infinite amount of numbers between the two numbers. For example, this number is larger than 0 but yet smaller than the second number .000000000000000000999999999999 you can now see how this process could go on to infinity and beyond. Therefore, in order to truly time travel it would need to be instantaneous. If asked what is faster than light? Time is. To give an example of something that is instantaneous it would be the present. The present occurs faster than you can say the word "NOW." Light takes eight minutes to reach Earth from the sun. Time or the present, is instantaneously the same at both the sun and Earth. And yes at the same time.


More questions for those of you who believe time travel is possible through the speed of light.

How do you travel into the future and witness the future if light has not yet been produced?

How do you expect to use the same positive distance and positive speed traveled to time travel to both the past and future? My guess is you can't. It would be impossible.

How can you keep patching the wholes that are always occurring in the theory that the speed of light is the key to time travel? When do you finally realize that it is time for a new theory?

Crisp my man you are very prolific and for that I respect you and wish you and all the rest that believe that the speed of light is the key to time travel, the best of luck. And someday Crisp, when you see the true light, we could use you on our side in obtaining the true key to time travel.
This may be my last reply for a long time as I feel that I am spending too much mental energy in trying to convince you guys of something you don't want to hear. I would rather use that energy in conjunction with others who believe as I do, to develop time travel. So bye for now and good luck. I'll be watching. The race is on.

<IMG SRC=http://iasos.com/detalist/rol/FractalSquare.gif>
Ah, but you could travel through a worm hole without the deadly effects of a black hole right?
Question is, what happens when you artificialy create a wormhole to appear at the gravitational mouth of a blackhole, and observe it as it gets pulled through? better yet what if you were to travel through that wormhole that is travelling through the blackhole?

I noted that the entire principle of using something like a blackhole or wormhole is similar to water going down a plug hole, it creates an area of space that water doesn't occupy, a funnel.

Of course in a Blackhole or Wormhole this would be a Vacuum, you could be sucked along and how someone on here mentioned "Spaghettified" as long as you don't touch the walls of the funnel, as moving into those walls would leave your molecules scattered between your entrance and exit point. (remember to tell your loved ones that method instead of cremation if something happens to you)

I did originally think of a wormhole without a funnel effect, but this meant that your body (well molecules) would act in accordance to the Heisenberg principle of Uncertainty, As soon as you enter, what every location your molecules are at could have an adverse effect, either some atoms might shoot electrons behind you, so when you arrrive they are missing, or your atoms might sling shot electrons infront of you, to arrive before you do, again this would scatter you through trying to travel through a wormhole without a funnel like vacuum.

Also you could mention Einstein's formula and understand two things:

1) If you travel faster than your atomic frequencies you will be converted to nothing more than energy and waveformations.

2) The energy that is necessary to continue acceleration to the speed necessary for time travel increases in the amount need due to a craft having to combat friction.
(this is why NASA was working ont he Hyper-X, as they were taking the very friction and using it to cause a more efficent drive, by forcing those frictionised particals through the prepulsion vent.)

Anyway as I mention in the "Parallels" posting, it's much easier just to send information faster than light, and send information back in time, rather than sending a craft, you never know perhaps you could use such a device to send your plans of a craft down to the beginning to build quicker.

Originally posted by Crisp
Ok, this definition is unfortunately as empty as the current definition of time. How would you define "energy" ?


I submit that All energy transforms: Newtonian, relatavistic and quantum. From light -> heat, friction ->sound, Gravity ->Kinetic ->potential. There isn't a static form of energy (isn't that a contradiction?) If the "Universe" became inert, devoid of all energy, static.. would there still be time?

Also How would you define energy?

And, what do you mean the universe dosen't age? Don't you see things traveling in a distinct direction from past to present to future. If the universe IS all that it contains, and all it contains ages (oh... bad choice of words i guess. I should have said 'has a linear existence' or something like that) wouln't that imply a like state?

Hi Hypnogog,

I submit that All energy transforms: Newtonian, relatavistic and quantum. From light -> heat, friction ->sound, Gravity ->Kinetic ->potential. If the "Universe" became inert, devoid of all energy, static.. would there still be time?

Unfortunately you cannot define energy by its energy transformations. That's like saying "a define a circle to be a circular object". A definition cannot use the concept it defines ;). I am saying this because heat, friction, kinetic (energy) and potential (energy) are four different forms of energy.

About your question: that would again be a philosophical question, along the lines of "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound?". If all energy is removed from the universe, then there would be no light to propagate events, so nobody would be able to perceive the progress of time. Hence: "if you cannot see time progress, is time still there?". Good argument!

Also How would you define energy?

I have absolutely no idea. The best I could do is the following: "Energy is a fictional concept that was introduced in physics to easily describe what is the driving force behind moving objects". After all, everyone is taught the definition of kinetic energy first: T = (1/2)*m*v^2. Nothing is said about the nature of this quantity, it's just defined that way. A nice consequence of this definition is that you have a quantity that describes "what an object is capable of": high energy = it travels at high speed, or has a lot of mass. Collisions with high energy: there surely is gonna be some action there.

And, what do you mean the universe dosen't age?

By definition, the word "universe" means everything in the world as we perceive it, including time. In physics, the universe is understood to be the 4-dimensional manifold of space... and time! What the universe concerns, all possible times from t = 0 (bigbang) to t = t[end] (= big crunch, or infinity if there's no end to the universe) are already included in this 4-dimensional description.

So the universe doesn't age. It's the matter within that ages.

Somebody earlier mentioned an article in Scientific American where you had this theoretical physicist say that the universe is static (I believe kmguru posted the link). I think I now understand what he means: from a theoretical point of view, time only exists for the matter inside the spacetime manifold. Spacetime itself doesn't age, it's only the matter inside that has a perception to time. This perception of time is due to a movement along the time-axis in spacetime. So I think he means that the fabric of spacetime is static, but only the matter inside has a perception of time.

Anyway, it's all tricky stuff. There still aren't indefinite arguments for one theory or another. At the moment, all our ideas are equally valuable (or worthless, for the pessimists along us ;)).

Bye!

Crisp

Alright, if you want a singular encompassing definition of all energy I will have to venture to state...
energy is the quantitative definition of the interaction between all objects regardless of size, mass or distance.
Time then becomes the way one measures that interaction.

Also, I;ve got a little semantic quibble to put forth. In your post way back there you said (and I've heard it many times before) "The Universe is the fabric of spacetime." Now that doesn't implicitly state that it IS spacetime, as you implied. Wool is the fabric of the sweater. The fabric of spacetime is the universe. The sweater is Not wool. Spacetime is Not the universe.
Sorry, that's bin a monkey up my mineshaft for a while.

take care.

Impossibility
Some things are impossible because they are against the laws of physics. Yet we can imagine many things that are impossible. Is the impossible simply a figment of the human mind? Is everything I can think about true?
---Tormod Guldvog

Excerpt from "Alice in Wonderland" (Lewis Caroll):
“There is no use in trying,” said Alice; “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I dare say you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast”.

What is impossible?
As human beings, we consider many things to be impossible. Some things we even use as metaphors for things which may never happen - like flying pigs. But why is it that we can still imagine pigs flying around?

What is real?
We like to think that we know the truth about things, and that these truths explain what we see around us. The speed of light, for example, has been considered to be a true and eternal measure. Yet new research has shown that the speed of light may have changed during the age of the universe. And so may the expansion of the universe, which astronomers now claim may in fact be constantly increasing.

Although we can observe many things around is, we cannot know everything about what we see. We can't see beyond the edge of the universe, simply because all the light we can see comes from inside it. Or does it? How can we be sure of that?

On the other end of things, there is a limit to how small things can be in the universe. This is called a Planck length, after the physicist Max Planck. It is estimated to be 10-33 centimeters. Anything smaller than this has no meaning in the physical world.

If I can think of something, is it true?
For some philosophers, all things that can be seen, must be real. But what does this say about things like "impossible" objects depicted by artists and painters?

And what happens if I think about things which are smaller than the Planck length? The answer may be that you won't, because you can't. But is it true?

Other philosophers claim that all things which can be imagined, must be real. If you can think of flying pigs, then flying pigs are for real. But this does not necessarily mean that they exist in flesh and blood, only that the "concept" of flying pigs is a "valid" concept. Get it? It is at least a great way to think if you have problems proving a theory...

Or, as the mathematical philosopher Kurt Gödel once said, "The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact".

* The Unknown and the Unknowable
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/traub/traub_p1.html
This is an interview with Joseph Traub about how scientists can understand and answer impossible questions and concepts.
Review: tormod
Engineering and Technology

* Erroneous Predictions
http://www.foresight.org/News/negativeComments.html
This page has a list of predictions, mostly concerning things which at some time were considered impossible, and which later turned out to be in error.
Review: tormod Sci-Tech History

* World Of Escher Gallery
http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/
This web site has a gallery with many of the drawings of M.C. Escher, famous for his incredible, impossible figures.
Review: tormod Geometry

* Impossible Objects Gallery
http://www.sandlotscience.com/Impossible/impos_frm.htm
This is a truly wonderful web site, with illustrations and explanations for numerous impossible objects. The impossible triangle section has a downloadable plan which helps you build your own triangle!
Review: tormod Mathematical Logic

* PuzzleSolver: Impossible Puzzle Solutions
http://www.puzzlesolver.com/impossible/index.shtml
Spoiler alert: this web site has a section which shows you how to solve impossible puzzles, like how to get big things into a bottle and other interesting stuff.
Review: tormod Gadgets

* There are really impossible things...
http://www.cut-the-knot.com/impossible/
This page lists several impossible things, and goes on to explain why they are impossible. But there is also a page about some surprising things which are actually possible.
Review: tormod Mathematical Logic

* Medieval Theories of Modality
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-medieval/
This is a very long text document from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, about Medieval modal thinking, which basically means that it is concerned with stages or levels of possibility and chance that actions and thoughts might actually happen. This is for the very interested among us.
Review: tormod Sci-Tech History

* Impossible Figures in Perceptual Psychology
http://www.fink.com/papers/impossible.html
A fairly old, but none the less interesting, paper with illustrations of impossible figures.
Review: tormod Psychology

9. Possibility and Impossibility
http://www.tir.org/metapsy/jom/061_possible.html
This is a brief philosophical investigation into different kinds of possibility/impossibility conceptual pairs.
Review: tormod Mathematical Logic

* Wishes for the future?
http://www.ideafinder.com/futurama/wishlist.htm
A bit offbeat, this is a cool list of people's wishes for the future. Leave your wish here, and the impossible just might come true.
Review: tormod General science


<IMG SRC=http://paranormal.about.com/library/graphics/timetravel.jpg>

ok ill try and articulate myself as best i can here but :

what is there to tie the speed of light in with timetravel

why if i travel (for arguments sake) faster than the speed of light will i "go into the future"

I know about how when you stick a clock in the plane and travel fast it will be out of sync with a stationary clock, but what is to say that the 2nd clock is ahead in time from the 1st clock ? Isnt time just realative

Try this : if i travel away from a clock at the speed of light, the hands will have appeared to have stayed still (realativity right). But if i do this for say, 1 year straight, am i not 1 year older ? have events elsewhere not progressed by 1 year ?

By that token you havent actually travelled forward in time (or kept time standing still)

So what im trying to get at is that perhaps time isnt tied together like this and that if you travelled say 10x faster than light in a spaceship for 1 day, you would age 1 day and the rest of the universe would "age" 1 day

any thoughts ?
-pk

I agree with you and have some further extrapolations.
The problem with the whole clock thing is that it always assumes light travelling in a singular direction and disregards all other sources. Whatever happens to all the light emanating from behind you, which you are reflecting at an increasing speed.
How about this for a Q&A.
If you travel @ c in a circle Around the clock, the hands don't change momentum at all by the time you make one complete circuit perpendicluar to the source. You've just travelled @ c without any dialation, right?
If you don't like the clock, how about a pulsating quasar.

Hi all,

Some comments and thoughts:

Hypnogog,

"Alright, if you want a singular encompassing definition of all energy I will have to venture to state...
Energy is the quantitative definition of the interaction between all objects regardless of size, mass or distance."

How about mass then ? Mass is a form of energy in the theories of relativity. From a classical, Newtonian point of view, I agree with your definitions. But in more complex theories, this definition cannot hold. The best I can do is to say: "Energy is a quantitive description of everything that resides inside the universe".

"Time then becomes the way one measures that interaction.""

Hrmmm... I agree to a certain extend, but I would not consider this to be a closed definition of time. Time is certainly a measurement instrument, but I think we're p