Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Machines & Experiments
Time Machines?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harte" data-source="post: 99791" data-attributes="member: 443"><p>No, you're not wrong.</p><p></p><p>But that's the basic view. That time is "the" fourth dimension.</p><p></p><p>It's true as far as it goes. We can observe and measure time just like we can observe and measure the other three.</p><p></p><p>But time is not similar to the other three in any other way. At least, not from our perspective.</p><p></p><p>Currently, the thinking on physical dimensions (not including time) is that there are ten - the three we know and seven more. Exactly why we don't observe this is unknown and the dimensions themselves arise from solutions to the equations involved in string theory, which at this time appears to possibly be an unfalsifiable (and therefore unverifiable) hypothesis. But the equations <em>are</em> consistent and they <em>do</em> result in the standard model of particle physics. The strings making up the theory must vibrate in ten dimensions for them to explain all the particles and forces we observe, you see.</p><p></p><p>The ten dimensions are interpreted in two different ways, as far as I know. One is that the seven "missing" ones - each of which is perpendicular to every other dimension (just like the three we can see) are "curled up" so tightly as to be invisible to us. The other is the cosmological version - where there are ten dimensions and our universe is actually a surface on a membrane that exists in a ten-dimensional space that we can't see for the same reason that Charlie Brown (if he were alive) can't see the person reading his comic strip.</p><p></p><p>The membrane surface thing is by far the more interesting. It involves multiple "branes" floating in this hyperspace or multiverse or whatever you want to call it. One result is that, should two branes collide, it would result in the surface absorbing the energy, which to us poor 3-D creatures would resemble the Big Bang.</p><p></p><p>As far as the other posts in this thread concerning magical unknown energy, I must say that energy is energy. If it's there at any useful level, it's both detectable and is in no way different than any other energy. Now, if you want to speculate about some unknown whatever that could "power" (the word "power," being ONLY the rate of energy flow, shouldn't even be used in this sentence) a time machine, a different noun should be selected.</p><p></p><p>Energy is a defined term and what has been speculated about in this thread is utterly unrelated to energy as it is defined.</p><p></p><p>Regarding the OP's request, there are no extant time machines. There are a couple of decent theories about how one might be able to manipulate time, but none of them involve any machine save one - something that goes really fast can take you into the future (but not the past.)</p><p></p><p>The problem here is that one must accelerate to reach high speeds. It would take about a year of 5g acceleration to reach a speed that would let you move into the future about one second per day.</p><p></p><p>Far longer than that (or far greater acceleration) would be required to reach a velocity that would allow you to make any significant "time leap" into the future.</p><p></p><p>Harte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harte, post: 99791, member: 443"] No, you're not wrong. But that's the basic view. That time is "the" fourth dimension. It's true as far as it goes. We can observe and measure time just like we can observe and measure the other three. But time is not similar to the other three in any other way. At least, not from our perspective. Currently, the thinking on physical dimensions (not including time) is that there are ten - the three we know and seven more. Exactly why we don't observe this is unknown and the dimensions themselves arise from solutions to the equations involved in string theory, which at this time appears to possibly be an unfalsifiable (and therefore unverifiable) hypothesis. But the equations [I]are[/I] consistent and they [I]do[/I] result in the standard model of particle physics. The strings making up the theory must vibrate in ten dimensions for them to explain all the particles and forces we observe, you see. The ten dimensions are interpreted in two different ways, as far as I know. One is that the seven "missing" ones - each of which is perpendicular to every other dimension (just like the three we can see) are "curled up" so tightly as to be invisible to us. The other is the cosmological version - where there are ten dimensions and our universe is actually a surface on a membrane that exists in a ten-dimensional space that we can't see for the same reason that Charlie Brown (if he were alive) can't see the person reading his comic strip. The membrane surface thing is by far the more interesting. It involves multiple "branes" floating in this hyperspace or multiverse or whatever you want to call it. One result is that, should two branes collide, it would result in the surface absorbing the energy, which to us poor 3-D creatures would resemble the Big Bang. As far as the other posts in this thread concerning magical unknown energy, I must say that energy is energy. If it's there at any useful level, it's both detectable and is in no way different than any other energy. Now, if you want to speculate about some unknown whatever that could "power" (the word "power," being ONLY the rate of energy flow, shouldn't even be used in this sentence) a time machine, a different noun should be selected. Energy is a defined term and what has been speculated about in this thread is utterly unrelated to energy as it is defined. Regarding the OP's request, there are no extant time machines. There are a couple of decent theories about how one might be able to manipulate time, but none of them involve any machine save one - something that goes really fast can take you into the future (but not the past.) The problem here is that one must accelerate to reach high speeds. It would take about a year of 5g acceleration to reach a speed that would let you move into the future about one second per day. Far longer than that (or far greater acceleration) would be required to reach a velocity that would allow you to make any significant "time leap" into the future. Harte [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Machines & Experiments
Time Machines?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top