• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Time Travel Invention


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 EverlastingLife

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 June 2005 - 11:08 PM


Time Travel Invention

Would this work?

A while ago, I’ve thought of a possibility of a time travel that would allow one to see in the past, but unfortunately, I don’t know anyone experienced in developing such electronic devices, and don’t have much of the time and resources to test and experiment with it itself. So I’m going to see here of the possibility if it might work. But the invention simply works like this; it is based on (Einstein Relativity Theory), and the path of light through matter such as those things that reflect it such as mirrors, and transmit it such as glass.

According to Einstein’s relativity:

A. The faster one begins to travel, to this person, the time slows down, such that as when one moves faster and faster, near the speed of light, the time dilation becomes highly recognizable. But the paradox is that anything with mass ‘cannot’ reach the speed of light, because its mass becomes infinite, and so takes an infinite amount of energy.
B. However, if for some reason you are to go faster than the speed of light, then not only will time slow down completely for this person, but time would be reversed, as its mass would not only shrink to nothing and would become ‘negative mass’

Now, with that in mind, as I’ve begun to learn this, I’ve thought of a possibility around this, which would involve mirrors; moving mirrors for that matter, and then which led to the possibility of something much simpler using glass and/or plastic. But first needs to be understood how they work, and it seems to can be explained and understood better with mirrors, but would be easier made with glass, and or plastic.

According to the way a mirror works:

A. As one looks into the mirror, one sees the reflected light, which reaches his or her eyes from that angle of incidence from the particular direction. However, the important part about mirrors is that when you look at it, you are seeing from its point of view. This is the first fundamental of the time travel idea. It is as if you are another person standing in the place of the mirror, and looking at the environment from the point of view.
B. The second thing of what we notice is that when we turn the mirror through 3D space, as we look into it, it is as if all the reflection of the mirror is changing too, in which it is. Now according to A is since we are seeing from the point of view of the mirror, if we change the mirrors ‘head’ in a given direction, then in that direction we will see. And in which appears to happen when we do so.
C. The third thing about mirrors is that when you rotate it not in a 3D direction, but in a rotational direction such that the mirror is still facing you all the time, the perception is not altered. However, the important thing to notice is that, the motion is still taking place. And yet we look through, it and nothing appears to happen as a result of its motion.

Now we know that nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, so neither can the rotating mirror. However, another thing needs to be understood for this time travel idea to work. And that is additive forces on each other, if you keep adding more force to a ball or something it will keep going faster and faster. And if you throw a ball in a given direction and it hits say a brick wall, the ball will exert a force on the wall and the wall an equal force to the ball. However, if you take two balls and throw them at each other the sum of their forces will be added. So in essence, it is adding motion.

Now as was explained before, when one looks into a mirror, it is as if that person is the mirror observing.
When one turns the mirror, it is as if that person is turning.
When one rotates the mirror such that it doesn’t change angles, it is as if the person is moving with the mirror, but the effect is not noticeable.
When two forces come together, their forces are added.

Mirrors Reflect Mirrors

This brings us to the next possibility. If when you look at a mirror that is rotating, and then you have another mirror looking into that mirror, then it is as if you are also the second connected mirror looking through its point of view, because mirrors reflect mirrors.

Now concerning additive motion, what would happen if you have the two mirrors rotating in the opposite direction? Wouldn’t there motions be added? And then what if you added another mirror to that mirror rotating in the opposite direction of the previous, would not that motion also be added?

So now, as we can see, if we look into this system of rotating mirrors, according to the way mirrors appear to work, you would not notice that the mirrors are moving. But they are, so what change would result of it, if we were to repeat it to much larger scales?

So the postulate is that,

A. The speed of the rotating mirrors, and
B. The number reflecting mirrors should multiply and add up the motion.
C. And that should proportionally be equal to the ‘virtual’ time dilation of the perceive observer.

And thus, since we can make as many mirrors as we want, we can multiple motion of say 100 miles per hour, by 100 times, by just 100 mirrors. And concerning creating things on small scales, we can have a system of rotating mirrors in one little small space.

Now moving back to Einstein’s Relativity, since we are looking at a systems of rotating mirrors that relatively add up to near, at, and more the speed of light, and since it is as if WE ARE THE MIRRORS observing, then would this make time appear to slow down as it reaches higher speeds, and then wouldn’t it be possible to ‘see’ the past through this system of rotating mirrors, because it is possible by adding more and more, in relation to the motions of all the mirrors, to reach beyond the speed of light? And concerning transparent materials can the same thing be accomplished.

Transparent Materials are like Mirrors

Now after the mirror postulate, I began wondering. If when you look through a mirror, it is as if YOU are the mirror, then wouldn’t that mean that if you look through a glass it is as if you are looking through the glass? And we know the same thing results: when we rotate a mirror as we look through it, nothing appears the to happen, and the same, when we look through a glass and rotate it, nothing appears to happen, but the motion is there regardless.

Now as with telescopes some have mirrors, and some use pure plastics see through, or glass. So if we had a system of glasses all rotating at opposite ways before the next, then shouldn’t the illusion of time dilation become noticeable, and even into the past?

So the postulate for a ‘glass’ one would be:

A. The speed of the rotating plastic/glass, and
B. The number transmitting glasses should multiply and add up the motion.
C. And that should proportionally be equal to the ‘virtual’ time dilation of the perceived observer.


Now concerning light moving through such large paths such as mirrors and transparent materials it experiences a sort of ‘friction’, so more than likely as with microscopes, flashing light and lens would probably be need to help maintain its long path. But do you think this is possible? Such that when one looks through it, whether it be mirrors or plastic, that he or she will see that particular space as it was ‘but so far’ in the past or perhaps in slow motion in relation to the motions and the number of elements the lights travel through?

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it is possible?

#2 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 13 June 2005 - 10:18 AM

Why not use one of these light-slowing condensate thingys? Or take a movie and look at it later for that matter [tung] I'm not getting your point, am I?

#3

  • Lurker
  • 1

Posted 13 June 2005 - 11:31 AM

I must not be getting the point either (no offence EL) - because I arrived at similar conclusions to you, John (you can only go back in time as far as when the apparatus commences its function). What would be great would be if an individual could enter in this region of time decelleration so that when they step out again far more time would have passed relative to their frame of reference - a sort of relativistic time dilation effect without the necessity to travel anywhere. Imagine stepping in, spending an hour and then upon stepping out, 10 years have passed. Think of how much money you could make in a compound interest account and how far anti-senescence interventions would have progressed to by 2015 ;) .

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 13 June 2005 - 12:14 PM

This one has a number of inconsistent fallacies I suspect. First though, to give the author his due he said (look back) in time.

I’ve thought of a possibility of a time travel that would allow one to see in the past,


As John already said we can already watch a movie of the past, or use our minds to see into the past by reading historical tracts. By reading authors from a period we certainly can gain an insight into the past.

But the fallacies of physics and material science are glaring. I suspect that EL underestimates what is entailed to create a physical device capable of achieving rotational velocity even approaching the speed of light, but I was also intrigued by how much this device reminded me of the one described by H.G. Wells in the Time Machine.

Changing the velocity of the light image of an object is not the same as changing the velocity of the object.

BTW EL, this is a false premise:

B. However, if for some reason you are to go faster than the speed of light, then not only will time slow down completely for this person, but time would be reversed, as its mass would not only shrink to nothing and would become ‘negative mass’


It is not derivative of GR or SR. There have been arguments about this aspect but according to Einstein you cannot go faster than C so the conclusion you offer is false.

Your postulates for Mirrors and Glass are basically irrelevant because you are still trying to manipulate the image not the object. You are assuming they are somehow the same thing. But as far as I can tell you are not grasping how the Theory of Relativity is operating with respect to time.

Oh well back to the drawing board.

BTW the use of mirrors to concentrate photon energy is a basis for the design of the Shiva Fusion Reactor project. They are simple reflectors (not rotating) but even then the difficulties of creating the kinds of perfect reflectors your design (even if not based on false criteria) requires becomes more obvious as the loss of energy to the reflective medium is also substantial.

BTW, the glass is not the reflector in a common mirror and this may be one source of some of your mistaken assumptions. The glass is just a medium to support the silver film that is laminated to the back of it.

#5 EverlastingLife

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 0
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 June 2005 - 04:09 PM

Ok, I'm not familiar with H.G wells time machine or light-slowing condensate. The orginal thought came back in 2001, I just placed it at the back of my mind, and decided to see if it was a possiblity. It just seems as though something should happen when you look through a glass that is rotating, because if something different happens, something different must also happen, and if you do it on much larger scales, then something different should become more noticable.

Now concerning traveling into the past, this is more 'telescopic' than 'transportive'. When you look through a telescope, it as though you traveled through space, but you really didn't, its simply virtual, the manipuation of light with respect to your eyes. With the process described above, it is also more visual than anything else. You are not really traveling into the past. You can only see it. You can't change anything, it is only there as it apppears. So I guess it is wrong to say actual 'time travel', but more of "Virtual Time Travel"

Now a video camera can be used to see the past, but doesn't it only see from the time it started recording, and from that particular space it recorded? But with the process, you can go anywhere in space, and see no matter how far in the past, even before video cameras were invented, and even where there were no video cameras present at the time.

Now concerning 'changing the velocity of the light image is not the same as changing the velocity of the object'. Yes, which is true, but then where does the velocity of the mirror come in the equation? Is not the velocity there, is not it present?

It does seem that with mirrors, such a device would be hard to create, but with a long ordering of rotating glass, even though the light becomes more more loss as it travels from the other end, I large lens could be placed to help focus back and amplify the light.

But anyways, I don't know, thanks for you guys input, will look into the subjected matter.

By the way, how was the H.G Wells time machine described/explained?

#6 knite

  • Guest
  • 296 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 13 June 2005 - 07:27 PM

well, if you really wanted to look into the past, you could set up a mirror a few thousand light years away(assuming youve perfected ftl travel) and with a powerful enough telescope, watch the rise and fall of rome.

#7 derekthano

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0
  • Location:California

Posted 14 June 2005 - 08:53 PM

(knite)
well, if you really wanted to look into the past, you could set up a mirror a few thousand light years away(assuming youve perfected ftl travel) and with a powerful enough telescope, watch the rise and fall of rome.


Of course, setting up a mirror that far away would be silly, as you could view said events at that location. Assuming, of course, that somehow the light hadn't been distorted over 'a few thousand years' of travel.

Ugh, the HTML isn't working for quoting.

fixed it for you. Don't use the quote=name function just type in the name in parentheses.
LL


#8 knite

  • Guest
  • 296 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 17 June 2005 - 03:58 AM

edit-i retract my stupidity
that wouldnt work as the light would take precisely the same amount of time to reach you from the mirror, unless you wanted to wait 2000 years.
i just thought it would be cool to watch a battle take place while standing on the spot it happened...

#9 Clifford Greenblatt

  • Member
  • 355 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Owings Mills, MD

Posted 18 June 2005 - 10:47 AM

edit-i retract my stupidity
that wouldnt work as the light would take precisely the same amount of time to reach you from the mirror, unless you wanted to wait 2000 years.
i just thought it would be cool to watch a battle take place while standing on the spot it happened...

If you search through space and happen to find a mirror 1000 light years away that was astronomically large, sufficiently precise, appropriately focused, and happened to be pointed in exactly the right direction 1000 years ago for a sufficiently long number of hours then you could see the battle that happened 2000 years ago, provided that the sky was clear back then. However, I think the probability of finding a mirror in space that meets all these requirements is very near zero. If such a mirror existed, it would be so large that astronomers would have very likely found it by now even when not pointed in exactly the right direction.

An advanced civilisation living 1000 light years away could have set up the required mirror 1000 years ago for our benefit but they would more likely have used such advanced cosmic technology to surround stars with astronomically large energy collectors to gather and store energy for their own use for the next quadrillion years. Their technology would also likely advance further to converting stars into precisely controlled nuclear reactors to supply useful enegry for life support purposes for huge orders of magnitude longer than the normal lifetime of a star.

Edited by Clifford Greenblatt, 18 June 2005 - 11:11 AM.


#10 Richard Leis

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Tucson, Arizona

Posted 19 June 2005 - 08:33 PM

An alternative to time travel would be a history recorder, perhaps a constellation of satellites that records and stores data about its target for billions of years. An advanced civilization could seed the galaxy with these probes. If the probes happen to record the history of a planet were life and then intelligent life evolves, at some point they may switch over to broadcast mode, providing the lifeforms a detailed history of their planet.

This seems the direction our civilization is taking, at least around the Earth and select other planets. Much of the data are static images, but our technology is advancing toward high definition video recording and high fidelity audio (the 2009 Mars Science Laboratory rover is being designed to capture low frame rate HD video.) As computers and sensors become more ubiquitous, more reality will be archived and recorded.

If we are already heading in that direction early in our technological history, perhaps older civilizations went through a similar period. Of course, just because the capability can be imagined, it doesn't mean anyone would have the will to do so.

#11 knite

  • Guest
  • 296 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 20 June 2005 - 12:31 AM

Thats a worthy goal for humanity to do, if we are the first civilization to come about (which is not a too far fetched possibility.) However, its one for the far future, we have bigger problems atm.

#12 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 June 2005 - 04:24 AM

Last Updated: Friday, 17 June, 2005, 10:03 GMT 11:03 UK

New model 'permits time travel'
By Julianna Kettlewell
BBC News science reporter

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/4097258.stm

#13 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 22 June 2005 - 04:49 PM

This thread is pretty much related.

I liked the mirrors idea!

Yours
~Infernity

#14 1arcturus

  • Guest
  • 41 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 June 2005 - 09:50 PM

There is already a good theory for a time machine, if someone would just fund its construction!
It would not be expensive or difficult (one supposes).

http://www.walterzei...timetravel.html

1Arcturus




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users