My opinion on Time Travelling Forward

[Andrew A]

Hello My Name is Andrew, this is my first post on the forums as I am pretty passionate on the topic of Theoretical Physics. The link will direct you to a comment-able file. Please keep in my this is my first draft and some of it will be hard to understand. Sorry in advance all feedback, good and bad are welcome. Thank you.

 

EDITED:

My theory on Time Travel will be expressed bellow.

Knowing that the universe is constantly expanding from the Hubble Constant Law.(https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/ ) .

The theory on the Bose Einstein Condensate, (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html )

and the Penning Trap, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penning_trap )

I have hypothesised a method of Time Travel for only a theoretical sense. This form of Time Travel will as well only consist of travelling forward in time.

Understanding the Hubble Constant of the universe expanding in all directions renders a connecting property to the penning trap. Now a pilotable shuttle would be created to remain in a constant position in space. This constant position must remain the same and must battle the attraction of gravity from greater masses. In achieving this state of a constant position will relate to the now devised ‘stasis trap’.

The stasis trap will relate to the antimatter storage apparatus, as seen in the penning trap. It will correlate the same idea of rendering the object inside to be at a constant position as will the shuttle to be at a constant position. Therefore putting these concepts together I now explain the Bose-Einstein condensate’s (BEC) significance in this matter.

In this shuttle at a constant position, it has created a ‘centre’ to the universe. As you find the probability to the positions of people scattered around a circular table, the same concept has been used in a three dimensional sense of fixing a position. Now the ‘stasis trap’ would need to be converted into the theoretical state of matter of the BEC (which is at 0K (K – Kelvin)). This would now create a cocoon like structure of a fixed position, non-moving object in the ‘centre’ of the universe.

Now putting the idea of the Hubble Constant into perspective as the universe will continue expanding as it normally will, the stasis trap would cease to be a part of the gravitational and expansion of the universe rendering the matter inside to not age nor move as at the state of 0K will ensure the particles and atoms to be at a ‘stand still’.

Therefore Travelling forward in time is to be achieved from the fixed position of a device cooling to 0k in a fixed position.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Andrew A

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

You will need to elaborate in the thread about whatever is in that document.

[ajb]

Your document is short, so you could easily copy it here.

 

Anyway, I had a quick read of it and it is just a mismatch of physics 'buzzwords'. I do not think there is much in it. Repost your document here and will be more specific.

[Andrew A]

Your document is short, so you could easily copy it here.

 

Anyway, I had a quick read of it and it is just a mismatch of physics 'buzzwords'. I do not think there is much in it. Repost your document here and will be more specific.

Thank you very much for your feedback, i'll make sure to re-edit and have the full document in this thread, any other tips will be greatly appreciated. Thank you again.

[mathematic]

First I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

 

However, time travel forward is quite easy. All you need is very fast space ship and use the twin paradox of special relativity. For example go a distance of ten light years to someplace at near the speed of light, so in your reference frame it takes one week. Then turn around and go back to where you started, the same way. You will have aged two weeks and you will be twenty years in the future when you get back.

Edited May 30, 2015 by mathematic

[eswit12344]

Traveling forward would be theoretically correct but that's all theorizing according to Einstein when you start to reach the speed of light. Your gravity will become immense in fact so much there might never be able to create any thing that would hold up. Another theory is that immense mass and gravity could preserve some one. Supposed a person where to go into a black hole (if the supposed hawking radiation doesn't kill you first) for five years they came back to earth everyone else would have aged four times faster 20 years older.

Edited May 30, 2015 by eswit12344

[mathematic]

Traveling forward would be theoretically correct but that's all theorizing according to Einstein when you start to reach the speed of light. Your gravity will become immense in fact so much there might never be able to create any thing that would hold up. Another theory is that immense mass and gravity could preserve some one. Supposed a person where to go into a black hole (if the supposed hawking radiation doesn't kill you first) for five years they came back to earth everyone else would have aged four times faster 20 years older.

There would be no difficulty in reaching close to the speed of light. If you could maintain a constant acceleration of approximately 1 g for 1 or 2 years you would be going fast enough. The main practical problem is designing a space ship to do the four steps required (up to speed, slow to stop, up to speed return, and final stop)

[Strange]

Traveling forward would be theoretically correct but that's all theorizing according to Einstein when you start to reach the speed of light.

 

I don't know what "start to reach the speed of light" means. You can never reach the speed of light. However, relativistic effects occur at alls speeds. They are just not very noticeable when driving around.

 

Your gravity will become immense in fact so much there might never be able to create any thing that would hold up.

 

Not correct: relativistic mass increase will not increase your gravity. (After all, in your own frame of reference, you are not moving.)

 

Supposed a person where to go into a black hole (if the supposed hawking radiation doesn't kill you first)

 

You cannot go "into" a black hole (well, you ca but you can't get out again).

 

And, except in the case of a really tiny black hole, the Hawking radiation will be undetectable.

[eswit12344]

So are you suggesting that Einstein is wrong.

[Andrew A]

who can say he is right?

[Strange]

who can say he is right?

 

The evidence says he (or his theory) is right.

 

Of course, Einstein wasn't always right...

https://xkcd.com/1206/

[eswit12344]

Einstein was a brilliant man and i believe him more than i believe others.

[Strange]

Einstein was a brilliant man and i believe him more than i believe others.

 

That would be a mistake. You should rely on the evidence rather than the word of individuals, however great they may be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority