Time machines

[AngelCleric]

I already explained it twice. The formula that governs the mass:energy relationship is:

E = γmc^2

People recognise this as E=mc^2 because at rest an object has a time dilation or "γ" of 1. γ is calculated by 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5, v being your speed and c being the speed of light. As v gets bigger, the value of γ gets larger exponentially since you are dividing 1 by a smaller and smaller number. When v = c (ie you are travelling at the speed of light), γ becomes infinite since you are dividing 1 by 0. There is infinite time dilation meaning that from an observers perspective in a stationary reference frame, time stops for the person travelling at light speed.

Now how much energy would a person have to be given to accelerate to this speed? Since γ is infinite, he would require infinite energy, which is impossible. Observed mass, is generally taken to mean γm (time dilation*mass, not "your mom") so you can also view an exponentially increasing time dilation as an exponentially increasing observed mass.

The behaviour of a photon is slightly different. You would think that having zero mass, and infinite γ, would give an energy of zero. For objects of zero mass, energy is calculated by E=hc/λ , h being the planck constant and λ being the wavelength. This is why photons can travel at the speed of light and objects can't.[/b]

Did you watch the video? Obviously traveling at the speed of light is impossible; but that's not how his idea works. Look at it, then come and argue.
I'm not saying it can work lol, I just posted this topic to see people's insights.. I personally think it will never happen, but i would like to see people's thoroughly written opinions rather than just.. "No it wont". (Come on guys.. Explain.. You learned this in like grade 3..)
Do you understand?

And if you are so confident, you must have a pretty solid explanation and proofs as well.
I have not solid explanations. It is just the fact, that it is impossible. At least for us and now. Maybe in 12000 years, when the human can move everything by thinking. THEN, but not now.[/b]

No, i am not 'so confident'. I am merely trying to get people like you to EXPLAIN your thoughts (something you should have learned in elementary school).

[0000000]

Did you watch the video? Obviously traveling at the speed of light is impossible; but that's not how his idea works. Look at it, then come and argue.
I'm not saying it can work lol, I just posted this topic to see people's insights.. I personally think it will never happen, but i would like to see people's thoroughly written opinions rather than just.. "No it wont". (Come on guys.. Explain.. You learned this in like grade 3..)
Do you understand?
No, i am not 'so confident'. I am merely trying to get people like you to EXPLAIN your thoughts (something you should have learned in elementary school).[/b]

i saw his video ages ago, I'm trying to explain the basics of relativity to counter some of the misleading comments here. He is trying to warp spacetime similar to how spacetime is warped around a black hole, but with high intensity light rather than mass. He is not trying to speed up particles beyond the speed of light which is what some people here seem to believe (it is impossible). The reason his concept has some merit is precisely for this reason.

As for my personal opinion, I don't think it will happen. If you are asking for a disproof of his methods then you should really try some physics professors rather than the ko4life forum.

[Dark3lf]

You can't travel back in time.. Why? Because someone would've told us he/she travelled back in time and proved it :P
I'm not sure if you understood me but let's just say there's a future. Somewhere in the future they wanna timetravel and if they were able to do it, someone would've came from the future and that person would've told someone about it for sure.

[AngelCleric]

You can't travel back in time.. Why? Because someone would've told us he/she travelled back in time and proved it :P
I'm not sure if you understood me but let's just say there's a future. Somewhere in the future they wanna timetravel and if they were able to do it, someone would've came from the future and that person would've told someone about it for sure.[/b]

watch the video.. he covers that; the machine only works from the time it is turned on.

[Dark3lf]

watch the video.. he covers that; the machine only works from the time it is turned on.[/b]

Trying to make a time machine is just waste of time and money..

[AngelCleric]

Trying to make a time machine is just waste of time and money..[/b]

so are all of the multi-millionaire Hollywood stars.

[Dark3lf]

so are all of the multi-millionaire Hollywood stars.[/b]

But atleast they give us some entertainment and they do exist. Time machines are still just theoretic, they look good on a paper but the reality is different :P

[AngelCleric]

But atleast they give us some entertainment and they do exist. Time machines are still just theoretic, they look good on a paper but the reality is different :P[/b]

the only way to make a theory a law is to prove it.

[0000000]

the only way to make a theory a law is to prove it.[/b]

I'm not sure if you know what a theory is. Nothing can be proven in science, but a theory is the highest accolade that a model can achieve; they are explanations of scientific facts. The only purpose a theory has is to provide an accurate model that explains observations, and can make testable predictions. If it fulfils this role then it is as solid as a theory can possibly be. An untested theory is a hypothesis. A law is just a fundamental theory that governs and ties many different areas of science. Besides, theories are not axioms. A theory or law can be shown to be accurate yet can also be proved false at a later date (good example being newton's laws of motion). The laws of motion put man on the moon and puts satellites in space but they do not accurately describe the behaviour of gravity or the behaviour of sub-atomic particles. So whilst they are laws, they are infact fallible.

I'm not sure why string theory is called a theory when it is quite obviously a hypothesis. I guess that scientists gave it that name to give it credibility. It is quite misleading because most people believe that a theory is a "guess" or "estimate". Nothing could be further from the truth. Theories like evolution, relativity and the big bang are about as solid as anything in science. They are all extremely accurate models that explain and predict observable data.

[loveya]

If theres a will theres a way h34r:

[yoav3211]

yey this way i will never burn my hb+7 to +10
lets make alot of +10 items!!!!!

[Xtr3m3]

If theres a will theres a way h34r:[/b]

I like that quote...I'll add it to my quote collection

[josri]

You can't travel back in time.. Why? Because someone would've told us he/she travelled back in time and proved it :P
I'm not sure if you understood me but let's just say there's a future. Somewhere in the future they wanna timetravel and if they were able to do it, someone would've came from the future and that person would've told someone about it for sure.[/b]

Im coming from the future. I traveled to this time to proof time machines are true

[neji]

isnt there also a theory that lets say i where to trow a tennis ball into a wall and that there is this 1 time when it will go trough the wall.... :blink:

Of course the odds of that are really low and you could probably do it all your life and never get it to happen ... i forgot how exactly this was i learned something about it in Physics

[AngelCleric]

isnt there also a theory that lets say i where to trow a tennis ball into a wall and that there is this 1 time when it will go trough the wall.... :blink:

Of course the odds of that are really low and you could probably do it all your life and never get it to happen ... i forgot how exactly this was i learned something about it in Physics[/b]

was your physics professor on crack?