Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

13 Year old boy Has Time Machine plan that might work

Options
  • 18-01-2010 3:39am
    #1
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭


    iReport — One 13 year old boy , named Gentill Abdulla, has said that he has a
    time machine plan that is going to work.
    I have personally met him and he is an extremely bright boy. Gentill says that
    his ingenious plans can allow time travel to be possible. He told me " I have done a lot
    of research on the areas of black holes, time travel, wormholes, magnetism,
    light, and most importantly gravity. I have devised an experiment that if done correctly
    could allow time travel .
    Here is the theory. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-367891


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,564 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    13 Year old boy Has Time Machine plan that works

    No he doesn't.


  • Options
    #3
    Rohypnol
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭Rohypnol


    If you had magnets in front of each other and had one beam of blue light that had been traveling for thousands of years...

    Good thing he's only 13, he'd want to send that beam of blue light off quickly so that he can do the experiment in a few thousand years time. He's probably willing the people in the future who receive the beam to use the technology to develop the time machine and come back in time to give him the beam now.


  • Options
    #4
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,119 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    so he's going to create a hole in time, how does he propose to control the size of it, i've a fear he could destroy us all..


  • Options
    #5
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    No he doesn't.

    Damn, you beat me to it!


  • Options
    #6
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    Money quote:
    There will still be a singularity but it will be magnetic. Now you make a device, that I have also made, that will split the singularity into a ring. This device that will make a hole in the singularity.

    To be honest, I wish nobody had noticed this. It's clearly wrong, but I don't want to give the guy a hard time, since he's only 13 and I'm sure most good physicists have passed through a crackpot stage when they were young. I know I did. You tend to be enthusiastic enough not to notice the gaps in your understanding and miss a lot of subtleties.

    So while this is clearly incorrect, I would hesitate to criticize the guy, other than perhaps on his claim to have actually built the device he describes above. He might well turn out to be a good physicist in another 10 or 15 years.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    rccaulfield
    Registered Users Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭rccaulfield


    hmmm he's doubted by his peers- tick box1 for genius!


  • Options
    #8
    Mucco
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Mucco


    Has he taken out a full-page ad in the Economist?


  • Options
    #9
    thecornflake
    Registered Users Posts: 784 ✭✭✭thecornflake


    he stole my idea ! , he must have used the time machine to go back in time to when i had the idea and stole it then.


  • Options
    #10
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    rccaulfield wrote: »
    hmmm he's doubted by his peers- tick box1 for genius!

    Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word peer. I don't have 13 year old peers.


  • Options
    #11
    digme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,584 ✭✭✭digme


    Funny none of you try to explain his idea and why it's nonsense :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    digme wrote: »
    Funny none of you try to explain his idea and why it's nonsense :D

    He claims to be able to do multiple thing that appear to be impossible without explanation. There really is no arguing with blanket assertions other than simply saying, show me the device.

    It's largely unintelligible nonsense, but as I have said, I'm against being to hard on a 13 year old.

    By the way, are you the one claiming to have met the boy?


  • Options
    #13
    gentillabdulla
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭gentillabdulla


    Like I have said before I have changed this due to energy reasons.


  • Options
    #14
    rccaulfield
    Registered Users Posts: 1,015 ✭✭✭rccaulfield


    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word peer. I don't have 13 year old peers.

    Ni i don't. It was a joke get off your high horse like!


  • Options
    #15
    gentillabdulla
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭gentillabdulla


    Does anyone have any questions for me?


  • Options
    #16
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    rccaulfield wrote: »
    Ni i don't. It was a joke get off your high horse like!

    I wasn't being particularly serious either, so relax.


  • Options
    #17
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    gentillabdulla wrote: »
    Does anyone have any questions for me?

    Well, all I've seem is the iReport thing linked above, where the quotes are very ambiguous. If you have written up something more detailed I can take a look.

    It's worth pointing out however that there are very tight constraints on what can be achieved within the constraints placed on us by general relativity and quantum mechanics.

    Multiply-connected spacetimes do allow for time travel, but even in these there are severe limits on signalling. From all observations of the universe so far we believe it to be simply-connected, with no closed timelike curves. This rules out timetravel, with or without Kerr black holes. There is no method for going from a simply connected spacetime to a multiply-connected spacetime within known physics (although possibly quantum gravity will allow for this). Either way, no physics has ever been confirmed which would allow for time travel. It can't be derived from GR and electromagnetism.


  • Options
    #18
    gentillabdulla
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭gentillabdulla


    Einsteins theory of relativity do allow for tunnels though. Which is what I'm trying to make a wormhole.If you like I will try to explain something about stars. Which I believe disproves quantum theory.


  • Options
    #19
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    gentillabdulla wrote: »
    Einsteins theory of relativity do allow for tunnels though. Which is what I'm trying to make a wormhole.

    That's exactly what I was referring to about closed timelike curves and multiply connected space times. Relativity requires closed timelike curves to allow for time travel. However, these are an intrinsic property of the manifold, and not something that can be created (at least not within our current formulation of physics), and it doesn't look like our universe has any closed timelike curves.


  • Options
    #20
    Marvinthefish
    Registered Users Posts: 193 ✭✭Marvinthefish


    funny-graphs-black-holes.jpg


  • Options
    #21
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Dey took ouur jobs!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    gentillabdulla
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭gentillabdulla


    Which is why you have to make one.You see what I am doing is changing a former singularity into a wormhole.it's like putty in your hands.


  • Options
    #23
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    gentillabdulla wrote: »
    Which is why you have to make one.

    Having a black hole doesn't imply you have closed timelike curves, which is what you actually need.


  • Options
    #24
    gentillabdulla
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭gentillabdulla


    Having a wormhole does.So do you say it is impossible a wormhole can be a former black hole?


  • Options
    #25
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    gentillabdulla wrote: »
    Having a wormhole does.So do you say it is impossible a wormhole can be a former black hole?

    Having a worm hole does not actually imply you have closed timelike curves, since the wormhole could be spacewise oriented (giving closed spacelike curves). Basically I'm saying there is no way within our current formulation of physics to go from a blackhole to a wormhole without postulating new physics.


  • Options
    #26
    Shoota
    Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭Shoota


    Is this in anyway connected to the latest Star Trek Movie? :D


  • Options
    #27
    Kevster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭Kevster


    That is one of the worst written articles I have ever seen in my life. The sentences go on forever in it... ...Christ, tell this kid that he needs to improve his grammar.


  • Options
    #28
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Professor_Fink wrote: »
    Having a worm hole does not actually imply you have closed timelike curves, since the wormhole could be spacewise oriented (giving closed spacelike curves). Basically I'm saying there is no way within our current formulation of physics to go from a blackhole to a wormhole without postulating new physics.

    Prof Fink, chill out. I am pretty sure that gentillabdulla is not the real Gentill Abdulla from the article. more like someone trying to wind you up.


  • Options
    #29
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,564 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    syklops wrote: »
    Prof Fink, chill out. I am pretty sure that gentillabdulla is not the real Gentill Abdulla from the article. more like someone trying to wind you up.

    He's exceptionally chilled out. These are just statements of fact.


  • Options
    #30
    gentillabdulla
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭gentillabdulla


    Yes I am the real Gentill Abdulla.Also yes you would need new physics for this. Which i can prove by saying that I think that quantum theory is wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Professor_Fink
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Professor_Fink


    gentillabdulla wrote: »
    Yes I am the real Gentill Abdulla.Also yes you would need new physics for this. Which i can prove by saying that I think that quantum theory is wrong.

    Unfortunately there isn't really any wiggle room here. If these are all macroscopic objects you are way outside the quantum gravity regime, where we may see some new effects, and into field theory on a curved background, which is a fairly well understood problem. Why on Earth would you think quantum theory is wrong when it is the most spectacularly successful theory we have ever devised? It's been verified to a far higher degree than general relativity.


Advertisement