It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Time Travel 101
By Scott Lenig
2009-08-08
But just how fast can one move? Science shows that we cannot move at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). We cannot because the faster an object moves, the more massive it becomes and the more massive it becomes the more energy is required for it to build speed. Simply put, collecting enough energy to go the speed of light is just out of the question.
To further explain in more understandable terms picture this; here we are in 2009 and you and your friend have acquired a space ship that can go 99 percent of the speed of light. Your friend gets in the ship and takes off at near the speed of light. They travel 10 light years then turn right around and comes right back at the same speed. When their trip is over, only three years have gone by for them. But here on earth it is now the year 2029. It took your friend ten earth years to get there and ten earth years to get back but because she was the one in motion only 3 years have gone by for her.
In a way your friend has just time traveled 20 years into the future and it only took 3 years.
Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by james420
Anyway, This is just one of the endless fascinating things that lie within Einsteins theory of relativity.
Originally posted by _damon
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
these are only hypothesis, we can't proove it... And it got 70flags?
Originally posted by tauristercus
How that would affect the course of history, I don't know. Would the time line split at that point creating an alternative reality?
Originally posted by Angelsoftheapocalypse
reply to post by Eurisko2012
Did the Helicopter actually travel through time linearly or did the gravity "bubble" actually accelerate the helicopter due to the helicopter not being weighed down by earth's gravity?
Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by Eurisko2012
very interesting but how could you create a field around the helicopter without the reactor?? doesn't a reaction need to take place in order to create such a field or is this simply using electricity?
Originally posted by postmeme
@OP,
So if you slow yourself down a lot relative to the rotating universe, you travel backwards in time too?
Maybe that's what happens in spontaneous combustions when they can't take the heat.
I guess Superman was right...
Originally posted by tauristercus
Amazing how ideas just seem to come out of nowhere when you get stuck into the possibilities of time travel !
I'm still certain nature forbids it (time travel, that is) but just in case I'm wrong ....
A couple of posts back I conjectured that maybe the laws of conservation of mass & energy may not have been completely defined and that we may have been unintentionally using a "cut down" version without realising it.
I basically wondered if mass/energy conservation should be modified from approximately the following:
"Within a closed system, that the total mass/energy content of the system cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space"
to a slightly modified form as follows:
"Within a closed system, that the total mass/energy of the system cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and time"
Is there any reason why this "slight modification" couldn't be valid as the underlying law that we're familiar with and were taught in science class would simply become a "subset" of the "modified" version but still be perfectly valid and useable?
Originally posted by spacebot
Not a bad idea.
Only thing we have to do is build a workspace where the proposed conditions are met to test the theory with the infinite cylinder and the orbiting object around it and find a way to measure the signs of time dilation.
Also a safe way to reproduce this event every time.
hmmm, let me think about that one. Time, is more or less the measurement of how fast the universe is expanding....or that is how I have come to understand it within the confines of this theory.
Going on that, it seems safe to me to assume that as time "expands" so does the universe or rather, space. So in a way, I am not seeing a difference in saying space or space and time.
Okay, first a dumb question, but I'd still like to hear the responses because the image in my head is neat.
If the faster you go the more massive your ship becomes then, assuming you could hit the speed of light before running out fuel, then wouldn't the fuel tanks continue to gain more mass as well? Once reaching the speed of light, if your mass becomes infinite then wouldn't your fuel supply also have reached infinite mass and therefore also be infinite?
Another question. From what I know about the theory of relativity. I may be wrong about this, but isn't it true that according to the theory of relativity if I'm moving away from you at 10 miles per hour then that, according to the theory, is also mathmatically equivalent and is the same as you moving away from me at 10 miles per hour?
In other words mathmatically, if I'm moving away from you it's exactly the same as if you were moving from me. How come only the person that gets on the spaceship stays young and the person on the planet gets old?