/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12741047
see
>>12741056

Also, no it hasn't.

Further Analysis:
1. We could construct multiples of these time capsules, and shoot them out into space...
2. If we don't find the signal we're looking for, when we only have ONE time capsule ON EARTH, then sending out multiple capsules into different parts of space, may be necessary.
3. If we don't find the signal, when we only have one on Earth, that could mean that no being that can send information back in time, found Earth/the time capsule, within the next 3-5 billion years. (Since our sun will be dead/have killed/destroyed Earth, by then.)
4. The Voyagers were almost the right idea, but they do not contain these instructions.
5. We need to start sending these out, ASAP.

Procedure:
1. We need to construct a time capsule, that will last for as long as possible.
2. That time capsule needs to have instructions indicating that if whoever discovered it has the technology to send information back in time, they need to send us a message.
3. We indicate a specific location in space-time to broadcast that message to.
4. That location needs to be the location of Earth.
5. We then search for that specific signal.
6. If we find that signal, we begin to initiate direct contact with them.

1. Time travel for large masses of baryonic matter, is more difficult than just exchanging information.
2. At some point in the future, "someone" is going to create the technology, to send information back in time.
3. That, someone, may speak an entirely new language.
4. That, someone, may not even be the same species as us.

I have an idea for an experiment.
This experiment would be a way to test some of the Multiverse theories, put forth by Tegmark.
It would also provide a way to test whether some specific forms of time travel are possible in this universe.

Let me begin with my assumptions:

I know something about time travel, but I am physically incapable of conveying details of that information.

I'm sorry, but I know for a fact that no one here will ever experience utilizing time travel, to go into the past.

All that aside, the first step of "making time travel" is reconciling general relativity's inconsistencies with observations.

>>11693268
I am beside myself.

auk bin aushim

>>11697374
Sounds interesting.

Is there a way for a black hole to revert/undo it's collapse and become a star again?

>>11695284
You would need to append what "alive" means, since this may or may not match the cookie cutter biological explanation of "life".

>>11697115
Good point.
>>11697146
So a technical discussion about time's possibilities isn't relevant here?
Don't like the thread, don't have to reply.

Instantaneous entropy isn't the same thing as negative mass.

Sorry homiebro-stasis

>>11695466
Well if you are familiar with cascading changes, then something going back in time would be nearly guaranteed to alter/destroy the future as it was.

The gravity of the mass, affects everything, even if just slightly. Any displaced particles, that wouldn't have been disturbed otherwise. EMF interaction with the environment and whatever device or person actually comes through time.

Those minor changes are enough to alter the future, assuredly.

If we decide to lock down time travel, to the point of the machine's invention, then we would probably be committing the future after that point, to constant changes.

The only way I can think of to resolve this, is that there would need to be a matter/anti-matter collision with mass equal to whatever travels through. AKA bullet point number 4
We have to "open the door" so to speak, for the future visitors, while minimizing potential changes.

>>11695188
>no such thing as a time line

Sir, I'd like to introduce you to my friend, absolute Newtonian frames.

ITT: Why have we not met time travelers in the open?

1. Not possible to physically perform
2. Using time travel to go into the past, alters/destroys possible future outcomes, which could include jeopardizing the time travel machine.
3. Moral and ethical limitations. (I highly doubt that matters. It would be used, if invented, certainly.)
4. Requires some sort of interaction in the present, for future people/beings to achieve getting here.
5. Perpetual nemesis. (The first person to use time travel, can continually thwart/kill anyone else who is going to develop it independently. This would maintain a monopoly on time travel. ie: Primer)
6. Could be here already, and are just staying low profile. (I feel this one is garbage, but why not.)

>>11547740
Not a math or geometry fag, but wouldn't this require that you know whatever the constant value between a Torus of X size and a perfect sphere of X size.

Since you'd probably deduce it, as a sphere and subtract what's missing...

Or, you cut the torus on one side, to make it a cylinder, then compute volume with the cylinder formula.

Again, just need to know the radius or diameter of the ring, and the diameter of the full torus.

Wouldn't be too bad.

I would actually choose the cylinder method.

>>11547664
Ah, so you happen to know where crank papers are published. That makes sense. Thanks.

>>11547576
Sorry, I neglected to mention that I am looking for publications or research studies discussing the topic.
I'm not asking for your expertise on the subject, sir.

Either provide me with research articles that prove gravity's root cause, or articles that prove this idea in particular is wrong.

Failure to do either, is not constructive.
I'm not looking for an argument or for someone to out talk me on the subject. If you're not contesting my assertions with evidence, then you're not really contesting my assertion at all. You're just replying with irrelevant statements.

>>11547569
*Baryonic entities in my explanation here, is just massful matter that can be gravitationally bound.

Anyone know about any theory that suggests the observable effects of gravity are caused by a future interaction?

Example to iterate the question:
I push a ball in the present.
The ball moves after I push it.
So the ball moving, occurred after I applied force.

Let's say I have a time machine, that allows me to push the ball in the past, without having to leave the future, myself.
The ball still moves, with no apparent observable force, to those in the present watching the ball move.
But it was only because I pushed it in the future.

I am curious to see if this type of idea is explored anywhere. I believe it would imply a mechanism that causes baryonic entities to be "attracted" to each other, but that mechanism operates in the future, relative to the baryonic entities currently moving in the present.

>>11165268
That's a piece that broke off the lander.

I'm not even linking a resource to prove this to you.

I've looked into it.
Believe me, or look into it yourself.

I'm going to bed.

this thread gave me aids in a different quantum timeline

>>11167237
Lithium Ion batteries being our most widely used portable energy storage...
As they have been...
For decades...

Dear God, is there a more stale issue for materials science guys to get to work on?

Just kill yourself if your field has anything to do with energy, and you're not working on that problem.

>>11106527
>> /mil/
!= /sci/

>>11106599
based

>>11105786
Please educate us on the mach effect.