Let's create a theoretical time machine

[Anonymous No.9998445]

In this thread, we will do everything we can do make a theoretical time machine through math. We will not worry about how the numbers will be achieved outside of theory until we have the mathematical proof.

[Anonymous No.9998453]

>>9998445
There is no theory yet because we don't understand how we can travel through time to begin with.

The stuff in the movies is just fiction.

[Anonymous No.9998456]

>>9998445
let's start simple. For starters, I will throw out the equation t = d / v. To achieve negative time and therefore time travel, we need to achieve negative distance, or negative speed.

[Anonymous No.9998464]

>>9998453
Movies are obviously fiction. My personal theory on the nature of time is that it's perfectly static, and that the way we perceive time is "moving forward" because our brains remember what happened the moment "before." Time travel means sending something sometime before the present, and that's not necessarily impossible.

[Anonymous No.9998467]

>>9998464
How do you send something back? With what device? Through what highway?

[Anonymous No.9998470]

>>9998467
We don't know until we figure out by what means we will be reaching negative time, aka time travel. In the first place, the immediate goal here is not to send an entire person back in time, but rather a subatomic particle or something of that sort which could be accelerated to near the speed of light. Some say that if you were to theoretically move over the speed of light, you would begin to travel to the past from your viewpoint. I'm not saying we need to magically poof a time machine, I'm saying we should try and mathematically prove that it's at least possible even if we don't have the means.

[Anonymous No.9998471]

>>9998470
>I'm saying we should try and mathematically prove that it's at least possible even if we don't have the means.

have we not done this?

[Anonymous No.9998474]

>>9998470
To clarify, I'm not suggesting that finding a way around the speed of light limit is the first thing we should try. If anything, that's near the bottom of the list. Right now, I think we should try and create a situation where time is negative.

[Anonymous No.9998476]

>>9998471
if it's done I'd love a link to that. If that's true, then we should attempt to create a theoretical mechanism that would simulate the conditions required.

[Anonymous No.9998489]

>>9998476
Lol you misunderstand. I mean that we've proved that it's not possible already.

[Anonymous No.9998490]

>>9998489
Okay then, where is THAT source?

[Anonymous No.9998518]

>>9998445
We make a place absolutely ideal for time travellers to return to without causing a paradox and release the annual location dates one year into the future - so the general population know "If I invent a time machine I will have it send me back to X location at Y time because nobody was monitoring that location and it was in a vacuum/ full of intert gas."

The location would be unmonitored and the escape from said location would lead to a quiet, unmonitored location.

That way the time-traveller's appearance doesn't alter the future in specific paradox causing ways.

[Anonymous No.9998520]

>>9998445
We make an area so cold it drops below 0 degrees kelvin, thereby reversing the matter in that area to an earlier time.

[Anonymous No.9998532]

>>9998445
We all pray to God to restore us back to a simpler and past time

[Anonymous No.9998565]

>>9998456
>a car travelling in reverse is going through time
this is the person who is telling you 9.999..=/=10

[Anonymous No.9998570]

>>9998565
Consider the formula as not velocity but speed. Obviously negative velocity isn't fucking time travel. Negative speed is.

[Anonymous No.9998572]

I think that travelling back in time is possible only beyond a black hole.
I dont think its realistic to talk about time travel without also talking about spacial relativity.
although trying to figure out how matter can be more that infinitely dense will be the tricky part.

[Anonymous No.9998576]

>>9998570
how do you get negative speed?

[Anonymous No.9998583]

>>9998532
God isn’t real.

[Anonymous No.9998584]

>>9998572
If you think about it infinity can technically be surpassed by a larger infinity. The space between 1 and 2 is infinite, because you could have numbers that are infinitely closer to 2 but not quite 2. The space between 1 and 3 is larger but still infinite. Infinity alone is not the end.

[Anonymous No.9998588]

>>9998584
I think what Im trying to ask is;
at what point does time begin to travel in reverse
is it p=infinity+1? p=infinity+infinity? both of these things still=infinity, so i dont really think that helps.

[Anonymous No.9998592]

>>9998576
Finding negative speed and therefore a method of time travel is exactly what we're looking for. I don't think this would work for the formula t = d / v, however. We will need to look elsewhere, because having negative speed means going back in time at a specific speed for a distance. We need to already have time travel to have negative speed here, so that's crossed off.
How about we look elsewhere in formulas like e = mc^2 and plug that in to other formulas? After all, the energy needs to come from somewhere.

[Anonymous No.9998594]

>>9998588
I'm also pretty in the dark of how we can pull this off, but time doesn't ACTUALLY reverse, but a specific thing will start to travel backwards at some point. One guess is that exceeding the speed of light causes relativity to flip around. Another is that going negative will make you go backwards in time.

[Anonymous No.9998595]

[math]-2/1 -3/4 -4/3 = -4.083... [/math]

Mechanical Brain Clock Cycle

https://www.nature.com/articles/nrrheum.2016.93

[Anonymous No.9998599]

>>9998592
like written here>>9998572
I think that its impossible without knowing what is the density at which time travels backwards. It will also need to be proven that any density past infinite will move time in reverse, as opposed to it becoming "more still".

>>9998594
I think backwards is your ticket man. but I dont think that can be achieved without greater than infinite density.

[Anonymous No.9998600]

>>9998572
Black holes are not time traveling objects. They are theorized to be either a worm hole-like, that is they take from one spot of the universe to another, or they take from one universe to another. Not time travel.

[Anonymous No.9998602]

We need additional temporal pylons.

[Anonymous No.9998607]

>>9998600
>theorized
anyways the only way I can even think to begin thinking about time travel is through the lens of spacial relativity- one of the only forces that seems to have an effect on time at all.
Simply, these effects are experienced greatest in a black hole. hence why I used them as an example

[Anonymous No.9998617]

>>9998607
Special relativity proves that its impossible to think about time travel.

If you want to talk about time travel, you will need a new framework, not some old one that has consistently shown the impossibility of traveling through time.

[Anonymous No.9998618]

>>9998456
this isn't even a definition of time, this is useful for defining v if you know what t and d are

trying to define time *starting with v*...well, this thread is troll anyway so sure, go for it

[Anonymous No.9998626]

>>9998600
They are definitely not time travelling objects, but what we're trying to do is make a sub atomic particle time travel. Relativity in a black hole could be key to making something time travel. Even if a human couldn't do it, a sub atomic particle doesn't need to worry about survival or whatever. The only problem I could see with this is determining if the particle actually travelled in time.

[Anonymous No.9998627]

>>9998520
I believe if things were to reach absolute zero, it wouldn't be possible to make the temperature drop lower. Temperature is the energy, aka motion, of particles. Absolute zero is when there is zero energy, or motion, among particles. I don't know if it's possible to have "negative" energy.

[Anonymous No.9998628]

>>9998617
>dude just redo it but for time travel this time!

[Anonymous No.9998642]

>>9998618
I stated that the equation would be useless. The only thing related to time travel with that equation is when t is negative, meaning that d / v is also negative. All that amounts to is the speed at which one is travelling backwards in time, which is useless.

[Anonymous No.9998645]

>>9998642
boy I sure am glad you posted it then

[Anonymous No.9998649]

>>9998645
I posted a discussion starter and also suggested we try different ones. What's the problem there?

[Anonymous No.9998650]

>>9998649
nothing anon, I just have a small penis

[Anonymous No.9998655]

>>9998445
Idk, my theory is it's not possible at all, and not just cause of stupid philosophy paradoxes.
Entropy alone should rule it out, given I'm subtracting myself from now and adding atoms again to a different time period. Atoms that already exist btw (or whatever base particle you wanna break down). And we all know an atom here is tied with an atom there. What will happen if the spin is different from the spin keeping ng us together?
That and say you did travel back. Where did you travel back? To where earth is right now? Congrats, probly missed it by a light-year. You'd have to track where earth is ans what direction it's going and what the heck even is the origin of the universes coordinate system.
Even if u figures that out, if you were off by 6ft you've just made your own coffin.
Realistically it should be a 2in1 spaceship and time travel machine so you can teleport safely in orbit and then let all the locals know you arrived.

Holy fuck, what if that's all UFOs are. Future generations observing what went wrong and how to fix it. Or considering we got around to time travel, just some sweet vacations and field trips.

[Anonymous No.9998660]

>>9998445
>Let's create a theoretical time machine
>theoretical

This is why I hate people from the past.

[Anonymous No.9998663]

>>9998655
Location doesn't mean it's impossible. The goal is to make a theoretical device capable of moving at least one subatomic particle to the past.

[Anonymous No.9998665]

Tachyons travel backwards in time, so you just have to find a way to get there without accelerating. Hint: time is in imaginary units.

[Anonymous No.9998671]

>>9998665
Tachyons are hypothetical though. I think we would all like to have at least have a solution that doesn't involve hypothetical particles and such if we can find one.

[Anonymous No.9998679]

>>9998655
I've found a good way to look at it is that since space and time are intertwined that we technically exist in four dimensions and not just 3. rather than removing atoms in one place i like to imagine that we're simply moving them.

[Anonymous No.9998695]

Anons I'm going to go to sleep now, I hope you can all keep thread alive, or even better, find a solution

[Anonymous No.9998700]

>>9998445
Finally, the article tells us,

However, perhaps the weirdest of all CERN’s aspirations for the LHC is to investigate extra dimensions of space. This idea, known as string theory, suggests there are many more dimensions to space than the four we can perceive. At present these other dimensions are hidden, but smashing protons together in the LHC could produce gravitational anomalies, effectively tiny black holes, that would reveal their existence.

Again, we have the theory existing in the data hole, feeding on nothing but math. We have never had any experiment suggest to us that “there are many more dimensions to space that the four we can perceive.” In fact, we have never had any experiment suggest more than three, since time is not a dimension we “perceive” like the others. What we have is a gauge math that suggests—because the way it is gauged—that we have more dimensions. But this math wasn't gauged based on experiment or perception or even theory. It was gauged based on desire. First, it was gauged based on matrix symmetry, a symmetry that has nothing to do with Nature or experiment. Then, it was applied based on the desire to fit Nature to this matrix symmetry. In modern physics, the math has come first and Nature a distant second. Quantum physicists don't even believe in Nature, and haven't since the time of Heisenberg and Pauli. The important thing is the matrix, and Nature can be forced to fit the equations later. That is what string theory is. String theory is a very large matrix math, with lots of attached side maths, and we are now using experiment to try to force Nature into this matrix. It is not that Nature is thought to have extra dimensions, it is that our math has these extra dimensions we need to fill. The math is used as a sort of starting data. The math is used as proof of the the theory. But a mathematical model cannot act as data or proof. To say that it can is to be unscientific.
M Mathis, truthful master scientist

[Anonymous No.9998703]

>>9998445
math is not science
math cannot be a proof
math is most often not based on physical properties of the universe

[Anonymous No.9998717]

>>9998700
String theory is not supposed to be concrete, but is used in a way that gives us a greater understanding of particle physics by attempting to force nature to make sense in a theory.

[Anonymous No.9998726]

>>9998703
Even so, we could garner some idea of what we need to build a time machine. It's not like the actual thing that needs to occur will be complicated, it's the mechanism that makes the thing occur that will be complicated. Math can't explain everything in the universe, but you can get a qualitative idea from using it in some cases.

[Anonymous No.9998742]

>>9998726
I suppose I should elaborate. I'm looking for mathematical proof of what would need to be done to a subatomic particle for it to go back in time. Things like that should be able to be proven by math, since we're solving for things like energy required.

[Anonymous No.9998777]

Anons, list some equations we could possibly use and plug into each other.

E=mc^2
t = d / v
E(sub k) = 0.5mv^2

[Anonymous No.9998791]

>>9998742
Well, based on a purely mathematical formula, should it not delve into the 4th dimension? So far it seems things have mostly been focused on 2 dimensions, with an assumption on time being linear. Perhaps we need to stop viewing time as a separate entity than space. Ultimately, space and time are one and the same.

[Anonymous No.9998795]

>>9998671
If that were the case then this wouldn't be a discussion in the realm of theoretical physics.

[Anonymous No.9998804]

>>9998679
This is how I imagine it. On the normal Cartesian coordinate system there are x and y coordinates. Step it up to 3 dimensions, you have x y and z. 4 dimensions and you have a fourth variable, lets say w. Normal mobilization is thought of on a 3 dimensional scale. Likewise, I would think 3 dimensional formulas, such as t=d/v would not work. We need to leave the x, y, and z coordinates for the sake of this. The mathematical trick, ignoring all natural laws and methods of achieving this, would simply be to move the w coordinate, would it not?

But I'm not a real scientist or mathematician so I honestly can't say much more than that.

[Anonymous No.9998821]

>>9998795
I suppose that is true, but at the same time the only thing stated to be theoretical was the time machine itself. Of course, theoretical physics can help you out, but that's also why a theoretical design without theoretical particles > one with theoretical particles.

[Anonymous No.9998825]

>>9998791
Time is not linear and this is why relativity and the very concept of a time machine checks out. It just appears linear. A rock in mid air in one moment will be on the ground in another, and there are infinitely many moments that lead up to the rock falling to the ground. The rock can't teleport from mid air to the ground, so what's in the middle is what we perceive as the time between.

[Anonymous No.9998827]

>>9998825
The illusion of linear time is just a result of the rule of cause and effect, to summarize.

[Anonymous No.9998868]

>>9998726
>Math can't explain everything in the universe, but you can get a qualitative idea from using it in some cases.
Math can explain almost nothing in the universe, as one gets a QUANTITATIVE idea from using it.
I'd sure like to hear a single qualitative example from you.

[Anonymous No.9998873]

>>9998868
When I say this I mean that you can use math as a sort of logic processor. So you can use math to say whether something is true or false, rather than to solve for something.

[Anonymous No.9998875]

>>9998742
Basing a math derived solution on no existing theory of unknown incidence not connected to "getting the numbers outside" of the non existent theory.
Sounds like a plan... from retardville.
In other words, it's awesome quantophysicalunivaltheoreticreversatimiticwarpedextractoconnoitedization.
Nobel Prize coming.
The theory of nothing, based upon physical nothing, math of nothing, cannot be wrong.
Someone type up some gibberish of scientific symbols with some numbers, a couple thousand lines long should be enough. We won't worry about getting any numbers from it.

[Anonymous No.9998876]

>>9998873
For example, I could get quantitative data on energy required to make a proton go back in time, and then make the qualitative statement of "A time machine is theoretically possible" based on the math.

[Anonymous No.9998877]

>>9998873
Math in real science gives us a numerical relationship between known physically related processes we have measured with instrumentation prior.

[Anonymous No.9998880]

>>9998877
We're still working out what we even need to do, so no math until there is math to do.

[Anonymous No.9998882]

>>9998875
We're here to create that theory. All of those here who have nothing to offer and are purely pessimistic about this are just delaying what could be or could not be a theoretical time machine. Why bother lowering morale if you truly believe nothing will come of it? This isn't pointed at you directly anon, just so we're clear.

[Anonymous No.9998887]

>>9998876
>Math can't explain everything in the universe, but you can get a qualitative idea from using it in some cases.
I still disagree, especially as your example portends. Your method of theory may yield a mathematical result, but as far as determining if that result has any connection what so ever to reality is completely up in the air until there is experimental confirmation to a degree, and even then it might be incorrect and something else might be going on.
There is no quality until the experiment is carried out and a confirm or negate is elicited.
You're hitting smack dab center on what is wrong with so much so called science nowadays. People seem to fail basic logic and understanding and misuse words or concepts or assign partial conclusion or unwarranted weight to various manipulations.

[Anonymous No.9998894]

>>9998887
You do realize that it's theory because it is untested and will go untested for a while, right? This will remain as just a theory until actual experiments are done, which, depending on what ends up happening, may or may not end up involving particle accelerators, which are a bit hard to get your hands on. Even if it's not that, there is the possibility of a mini black hole, which is also hard to achieve, and other things that VERY few people have access to.

[Anonymous No.9998904]

>>9998445
Theoretically if you were able to escape a black hole you would be going back in time from a physics perspective.

[Anonymous No.9998911]

>>9998894
an untested theory with postulated math, does not gain credence because a mathematical "answer" can be derived
The experiment can be done without math
The theory can be postulated without math
Any math done is totally speculative, and thus never qualitative in nature.(deterministic of the likelihood of your theory being correct). I quite understand the modern environment pines on endlessly that it is absolutely indicative, but math is highly malleable and often divorced from physicality completely - an answer can be massaged in any case.

[Anonymous No.9998914]

>>9998904
But nothing will be escaping from any black hole, so that's not so viable. Considering that we're seeking to make a subatomic particle go back in time, I suppose a mini black hole might work if close enough to our particle, since it would stop existing almost instantly. So, even if that hypothetically worked, we now have the problem of not being able to create a black hole even in the LHC.

[Anonymous No.9998924]

>>9998911
I mostly agree with this. I don't believe that any theory could be tested right now or for a long time. Even the LHC can't generate a mini black hole, and is far from being able to do that. If we're talking time travel, math and logic is the best we have for now.

[Anonymous No.9998933]

>>9998914
>>9998924
So what would we need to be able to create (mini) black holes?

[Anonymous No.9998941]

>>9998445
If you can go faster than light you can time travel already. Ergo, go invent FTL

[Anonymous No.9998945]

>>9998933
A shit ton more energy in the LHC
But the biggest question is how do we observe whether something as small as a sub atomic particle has travelled to the past? Even if we could detect it, we would have no idea if the black hole shredded it or if it travelled to the past. If it travelled to the past, wouldn't it technically still be in the LHC? Could we even tell if it travelled? These are the bigger concerns, because until we get to human experimentation, there is almost no telling as to whether or not we have gone to the past.

[Anonymous No.9998953]

>>9998882
Ok. so...
>Entropy alone should rule it out, given I'm subtracting myself from now and adding atoms again to a different time period. Atoms that already exist btw (or whatever base particle you wanna break down). And we all know an atom here is tied with an atom there. What will happen if the spin is different from the spin keeping ng us together?>>9998655

Thus I'd say we need to move this particle through time before it's a particle, and should draw it from a building block, the Higgs boson - as time may not be constrained in the same way before matter is constituted.
So data from CERN on the Higgs boson - which as I recall was a very large 125 GeV

[Anonymous No.9998957]

>>9998642
that's fine, but i appreciate oddly distorted pictures so i think that this post >>9998645 has value as well

[Anonymous No.9998958]

>>9998825
>>9998827
Relativity checks out because it states the spacetime we live in is best modeled as a Lorentzian manifold. What you're stating can only be said from an external absolute reference point, which we cannot have. From our perspective time is linear and will always be linear.

[Anonymous No.9998966]

>>9998933
Eugene Podkletnov reported 64X the speed of light travel with his ceramic magnetic spinning electrified gravity wave generator over the course of several miles, so what does that mean for time travel... an artificial "bolt" (described as a contained and slightly spreading cone like how a laser light travels) of gravity traveling at 64x light speed...

[Anonymous No.9998972]

>>9998966
I should note a condensed bose-einstein condensate was generated in a layer of the spinning superconductor ceramic by a high resonant pulse of voltage, the "gravity wave" traveled forth perpendicular to the disc and was capable of punching holes in concrete at distance.
Part of the theory puzzle is there.

[Anonymous No.9998993]

I like the idea of going below zero Kelvin. All that means is the particle has no energy and is attracting energy. Gravity is a force that brings particles together.

Is there a link between gravity/strong force/weak force and negative Kelvin?

[Anonymous No.9999009]

>>9998445
I don't know man all I know is that I went backwards in time while during a LSD induced psychotic episode.

[Anonymous No.9999012]

>>9999009
Me too man, began as dust, end as dust.

[Anonymous No.9999014]

>>9999012
Thats right

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2w6Oxx0kQ

[Anonymous No.9999087]

>>9998470
I think it's impossible to do that, like literally not possible to go back in time, could be possible to "slow" time to "travel in the future" or gain additional time, but it'd be a one way trip. Moving through time requires the ability to live in and see the outer structure. Maybe if you could become infinitely big in a way that doesn't destory reality and had immense knowledge of quantum mechanics you could go back in time by getting out of this universe and rewinding or rebuilding it.

[Anonymous No.9999183]

>>9998958
If you consider time linear, then you consider space as only existing between the two points you are trying to get to.

[Anonymous No.9999213]

>>9998958
>>9999183
When you say time is linear, what do you mean by that? I consider it to mean that the past has already happened and that we can't predict the future. A nonlinear universe means a huge matrix of moments where each moment has one after and one before, but only because of cause and effect. In this scenario, the future is already determined. What you do, what I do, and what happens to everything is determined. Because I believe this, this means a time leap machine with full functionality is impossible, because while you could send your memories back in time, nothing should change from your own perspective. Everything changing is happening before you, and because no given "moment" in a nonlinear universe can be skipped, you will never see the effects of your changes by time leaping.

[Anonymous No.9999222]

>>9999213
But the thing is, "moments" are not happening one after another, since it's a static matrix of every moment there ever was and ever will be. This is what I think is meant when we say time is the 4th dimension. To say it another way, let's set it up on a graph. If we condense a single state of the universe into a sheet existing in the x and z axis (3d dimension squashed into 2D - we need y for something else), and then have y be time, then the graph of every state of the universe over time would look like a block because of the infinitely many states of the universe.

[The Lord No.9999229]

Time circuit design here, pic VERY related
Time Arrow Spinors for the Modified Cosmological Model
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1807.0454

[Anonymous No.9999233]

>>9998618
>this is useful for defining v if you know what t and d are
Fuck off. The definition of v should be defined through kinetic energy:
[math]v = \sqrt{\frac{2E_k}{m}}[/math]

Now define t as usual:
[math]t(x)=\int_0^x\frac{dx}{v(x)}[/math]

>inb4 hurr the first equation is useful for defining Ek, not v.

Now admitedly I don't know how it's possible that sqrt(joule/kilogram) gives meter/second.
Didn't einstein say mass and energy are the same thing? In that case, the units cancel out and v is unitless: a purely ficticious number.
If that's true, then by formula t = d / v (since v is unitless) time is same unit as distance so meter = second.

So in conclusion, if you step one meter back you go in the past one second.
This is what electrons do all the time as you can observe in the Feynman diagram. Obviously, Feynman has invented time travel before any of you fuckers did.
But the only trick is that every atom in your body needs to move exactly one meter back in order to go to past one second which is a bit difficult.

[Anonymous No.9999235]

what is the speed of magnetism? not electromagnetic waves actual magnetism itself.

[Anonymous No.9999283]

>>9999235
>not electromagnetic waves actual magnetism itself
hope you're baiting

[Anonymous No.9999401]

>>9999233
Wouldn't every atom of the universe also have to move to the exact position it was 1 second before? You could do the whole galaxy and still feel like a realistic past because the rest is too far to affect our surroundings, there would be consequences far down the line.
This would require energy, a shitton of it. Need to be 5 dimensional to have that much energy me think, at that point our universe would behave similar to a foundamental particle for us me think.

[Anonymous No.9999441]

>>9999401
Not necessarily. Time is relative. Different intensities of gravity already cause different points in space to move through time at different speeds.

[Anonymous No.9999443]

>>9998660
this is an underrated post

[Anonymous No.9999888]

>>9998966
>>9998972
Can we look into this?

[Anonymous No.9999927]

>>9999888
>>>9998966
>>>9998972
>Can we look into this?
Podkletnov wrote a paper about his device, he lied about having a co-author, he also lied about two other labs having successfully reproduced his experiment. As a consequence, his university fired him.
He has no credibility and there is no reason to imagine that such a thing could actually work.

[Anonymous No.10000061]

>>9999927
Even if he tried to get fake credibility, I just want to know if there is evidence of his personal experiments working. Although I'm assuming it's a 99% chance that this guy's device is fake and that this isn't worth the time to investigate

[Anonymous No.10000071]

>>9998470
If you look at the equations involved, a faster-than-light object would actually move in "imaginary time", not backwards in real time.
What that really means we have no idea. It's just a mathematical thing.
If you were to represent time with two axis, and you put real time (the "normal" one) on the Y axis, and imaginary time on the X axis, then you could say that a FTL object would be moving "to the right" in time.

Then again, I don't know what that means in the real world. FTL speed is impossible as far as we know anyway.

[Anonymous No.10000076]

>>9998627
>I don't know if it's possible to have "negative" energy.
Black holes are thought to "evaporate" by virtual particle pairs forming on the boundary and being separated before they can disappear, becoming 'real' particles in the process. The one that escapes has some measure of mass, or energy, and unless energy is being created, the black hole must be losing it when the other particle falls in. Hence, it must be possible for a particle to have negative energy. All we have to do is find a way to generate it.

[Anonymous No.10000136]

>>9998445
Interesting thread, but before math I think you need to think how you want to accomplish this. If there's a way, of course. Unrelated, but I've always considered the reasons behind Laplace's demon impossibility related to the manipulation of what we consider time. Black holes, too, hide a vast amount of physical properties we won't understand for long, if ever.

[Anonymous No.10000197]

>>10000136
Well we can't exactly just think about what might work either. Any conditions we simulate will be connected to some numbers anyways. For example, we can attempt to theoretically throw things in the LHC, but math can generally tell us if it's worth investigating or not. If an object had infinite mass, or had negative energy, I think we could potentially do some time travel things.

[Anonymous No.10000219]

>>10000076
If we were to perfectly position a mini black hole, I think we could pull off the separation and negative energy in time for the black hole to dissipate, therefore allowing us to possibly have negative energy. That is, if I'm understanding this correctly, because I have a feeling that whatever I said is not how it actually works.

[Anonymous No.10000228]

>>10000219
I have read a small amount about negative energy, and it seems that we need to manage to generate a bunch of virtual particles and therefore hawking radiation. The real question is, how much negative energy would we need?

[SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS No.10000248]

Find a way to reverse literally every reaction in the universe and you have a time machine.
Have fun building a computer that needs more transformed (available) energy for processing power than the universe has.
>Oh and then you still need to have the computer without the processing power.
Ergo: time travel needs more energy than is currently available, which renders it impossible.

[Anonymous No.10000284]

>>9999927
>Podkletnov wrote a paper about his device, he lied about having a co-author
No, he is not the liar, the scientific community is the pressure, and Vourinen caved to it.
Boeing black projects: " The head of the Phantom Works, George Muellner, told the security analysis journal Jane's Defence Weekly that the science appeared to be valid and plausible."
You're incorrect.
NASA however failed with weak discs and poor funding. Boeing GRASP did not fail.

[Anonymous No.10000285]

>>10000061
It's real he has done it again, and so has Boeing black projects.
Your ignorant opinion and lies from the fearful do not science make.

[Anonymous No.10001763]

>>10000285
Can you link the studies? I must see

[Anonymous No.10002296]

>>10001763
Bumping so that I can possibly look at the studies

[Anonymous No.10002339]

>>9998532
>>9998583

Yeah god’s a faggot.

[Anonymous No.10002349]

>>9998456
To define time you must define distance and velocity.
In what direction is time flowing and at what rate?
It is evidently at the rate of a gravity wave.
Therefore we simply reverse gravity in any point we want on the velocity axis.
Since speed/velocity is also directly proportional to its rate of expansion to do the same for "distance" is parallel and trivial.

Then boom.

You are back in your prime in 1999.

P.S
I do hope you use this knowledge to kill us all.

"Give a gun to a good man? He rarely kills.
A bad man? Kills for profit.
Give it to an IDIOT however...
The bloodshed is unimaginable."

Sincerely,
An Omnicidal Maniac.

[Anonymous No.10002540]

>>10002349
If the theory of relativity holds up and gravity is a distortion in spacetime, then what exactly IS reverse gravity? Gravity as an attractive force should be a side effect of objects distorting spacetime, so reverse gravity shouldn't be a repulsive force. Would spacetime instead distort objects? That seems a bit outlandish. Please explain exactly how you would reverse gravity.

[Anonymous No.10002564]

>>10002349
Also, are you saying that through this method, you yourself would regress in addition to your surroundings? How is that possible? If your body goes back to its previous states and so does the world around you, isn't this useless because your brain and therefore your memories would also be in a previous state?

[Anonymous No.10002639]

>>10002564
Reverse gravity is gravity...
In reverse an electromagnetic oscillation from a device large or powerful enough to manipulate the "sound" in an opposite direction. The cost being energy.
Alot of it. You lose space in exchange for time.

Sectional time travel. Like Tracer from overwatch except in real life the device would have to be MUCH larger and yes. The mind would reverse on radius. Perfect if you wanted to go back to when you were first made aware. Perfect if you wanted to go back to when you were first made aware. Perfect if you wanted to go back to when you were first made aware. The only way to negate the effect of forgetting moms spaghetti is to have your memories stored somewhere -temporarily- then have a reminder to replace your new body with old memories. Yes. That was a pun.

[Anonymous No.10002696]

>>10002639
Sauce on pic?

[Anonymous No.10002953]

>>9998933
anything you need to create one will be gone once you do
if the LHC ever achieves it, the earth is a goner

[Anonymous No.10003375]

>>10002953
Why's that? You realize that it would almost instantly disappear

[Anonymous No.10003379]

>>9998445
time doesn't exist in a physics related context so the whole concept is fundamentally flawed and so is most of science

[Anonymous No.10003578]

>>10003379
So you're saying the idea of a time machine is impossible because time is not a thing from the perspective of a branch of science which, like you said, is flawed.

[Anonymous No.10003602]

We are already moving backwards through time the trouble is moving forward from the origin.

[طابور الله No.10003613]

>>10002349
"I am going to kill every single last human being, starting with me." ~ S.

Beta Immortal Omniphile = BIO

[Anonymous No.10004988]

How about this ?
> use special relativity
> use the time dilatation formula

And then.. we go faster than light?

[Anonymous No.10005088]

>>10004988
That's a fairly extreme thing to go to just because you didn't want to see some specific human personality types ever again.

Have you tried shooting up a school? I felt weird at first trying to get a high score there, but I succeeded and felt better.

They charge a lot to do one though, but totally worth it.

[Anonymous No.10005261]

>>10005088
If we built the time machine we could hypothetically shoot up every school there is without consequences if we managed to get away from each site and had the time machine pre-prepared each time, which is all the more reason to work hard and make this thing into a thing

[Anonymous No.10005552]

>>9998445
Warping space has a tangible effect on time, and velocity has an effect on time.
Velocity has an upper limit which cannot be surpassed, and we can observe that objects traveling at that upper limit are massless, and also do not experience backwards time, so velocity is a bust. You can't go faster than light, that's not how things work, no, fuck you, you're stupid if you think that.

Spatial distortion is the only reasonable way you could affect time so as to travel through it in an unorthodox way. In order to travel backwards in time, the warping of space must happen specifically so as to create a closed timelike curve, a path which starts at one point in time and ends back at the origin, and which you could conditionally exit and end up in the past.
The issue with this method is that it's really hard to bend space like that. Like, impossibly hard. Like, you would need an infinitely long rotating object to drag spacetime, or you need a finite rotating mass coupled with regions of negative energy density. Needless to say, either an infinitely long rotating object or a region of negative energy density would be very difficult to obtain.

And that's that. Time travel can't happen.
Mathematically, sure, you can do it, but it requires dealing with infinity or negative energy, which are both things that really do not happen in the natural world.

[Anonymous No.10005567]

>>9998470
Let me propose something.
Time as a dimension should include light, and light speed could be a gauge of the ratio of time experienced overall.

If you reach near light speed time dialates, but if you achieve beyond light speed, and could navigate in that dimension, you could easily control the amount of time experienced.

You could never go backward: even though information is not lost in the universe (except perhaps in black holes) states of matter change. This includes the matter in human beings. If we could find a way to surpass the limitation of light speed then we may also escape time. Depending on the level of advancement our civilization reaches, time could be the real final frontier.

[Anonymous No.10005582]

>>10005567
You're not allowed to talk about dimensions ever again because you clearly don't know what the fuck a dimension is you goddamn retard

[ECHS No.10005644]

>>10005582
And yet he keeps finding the intersection between his dimension and yours.

>Persistent Polynomial Process

[Anonymous No.10005657]

>>10005644
Your posts make me feel like I'm having a stroke
I believe in eugenics now

[例 No.10005666]

>>10005657
Thank you, took me a while to find another who is willing to diverge the species simply by the interaction of another.

Fertility limiter seems the best idea.Or shall we just drive everyone crazy and the current generation of humans just become porn habits.

[Anonymous No.10006000]

>>10003375
lmao
Pray tell how an extreme compressed mass with enormous gravity disappears

[Anonymous No.10006867]

>>9998445
you'd better figure out where you're going first - because knowing where something is, is a big problem that is not going to solve itself...

"Date:
August 3, 2006
Source:
Ohio State University
Summary:
An Ohio State University astronomer and his colleagues have determined that the Triangulum Galaxy, otherwise known as M33, is actually about 15 percent farther away from our galaxy than previously measured. This finding implies that the Hubble constant, a number that astronomers rely on to calculate a host of factors -- including the size and age of the universe -- could be significantly off the mark as well."

LMAO - this throws off all sorts of calculations, including those used for black holes... once the math is applied we are beyond the 100% error rate...

[Anonymous No.10007230]

>>10005582
It was more of a thought experiment.
This thread is /x/ tier at best.

[Anonymous No.10007277]

Theorycaly, to do this, you need to deform the space time, to do this the better thing is, the theory of quantum gravitation, go see GW150914 to understand this thing.

[Anonymous No.10008639]

>>10006000
It fucking dissociates you brainlet. even if it didn't a black hole only has as much mass as the matter that created it. if the sun were to become a black hole the solar system would continue its normal routine if ignoring the obvious change in heat output.

It is nothing but retarded to suggest that a black hole with the mass of a few atoms would swallow the earth. fuck.

[Anonymous No.10009513]

>>10006000
You can't be serious