13 Year old boy Has Time Machine plan that might work

gentillabdulla

Now I was wondering about the controversial spacetime continuum.

I am for the spacetime continuum because I believe it accurately predicts how gravity acts. Here is a link for that...

http://www.physorg.com/news187447655.html

(But something most of us don't know it wasn't Einstein who created the idea for a spacetime continuum but Minkowski, one of Einstein's teachers at the ETH Zuric.)

Anyway I thought about the perspective of different dimensions and gravity.

Here is what is known as a tesseract

en.wikipedia.org...

A tesseract is known as a four dimensional square.

This tesseract that is in rotation becomes very weird looking when looking at it head on.

Lets have a little thought experiment before we go on...

What would a 2 dimensional object look like if it was placed in a 1 dimensional world?

To me I would think that it would exist as a 1 dimensional part but it's true 2 dimensional quality would be hidden from view.

Now what would a 3 dimensional object look like in a 2 dimensional world?

It would look 2 dimensional.

Now it goes to what would a 4 dimensional object look like in a 3 dimensional world?

It would look like a 3 dimensional object.

But what if the object when it interacts with the 3 dimensional matter and energy warps?

It would create an effect that is 3 dimensional.

Now spacetime is known as a continuum of both space and time.

It occurred to me while I was looking at this picture what spacetime might be made of...

orbismediologicus.files.wordpress.com...

What if spacetime was made out of individual tesseracts that bent when they was mass present?

Then an effect which is 3 dimensional would be created.

I think that the effect created is called gravity.

Any questions, comments, concerns, or conundrums then please post here.

gentillabdulla

Professor_Fink wrote: »

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?

So you guys wanted an explanation to my thinking alright then I will try and explain myself.

When aligning magnets of the same polarity all around a magnetic field they repel each other.

If there was a large spherical magnet at the center then the magnet would, due to it's polarity, try and move away.

This cannot happen due to the arrangement of the magnets.They will force the large spherical magnet to implode.This implosion brings the mass it has inward.

According to Einstein mass and energy bend spacetime to create gravity. As the object is imploding the energy and mass would implode inward warping spacetime as it implodes.

This causes spacetime to warp even more producing gravity.

Now to time travel we need to create a thing called closed timelike curves.Professor Fink mentioned numerous times that we don't know of a mechanism that could create these curves today.

But you will find that if this object goes under a simple rotation the spacetime bending would cause closed loops in time and space without the infinite energy density of a black hole needed.

The time traveling would be solely dependent on the rotation of the spherical magnet.Not a blue beam of light.:p

This can be a method of gravity production but it's energy requirements are much more then what we are capable of today.:eek:

Which is why I changed the experiment to a new one which I still believe in.

gentillabdulla

Professor_Fink wrote: »

Money quote:
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.

So you are clearly skeptical of a magnetic singularity aren't you? Tell me would a black hole that is rotating at speeds close to that of light not deform?

This is important because it causes the singularity not to exist as a point but a ring due to the deformation of the black hole.

Now there are other ways to get a wormhole from a black hole.

Again here is a wormhole.
http://lnns.webs.com/lnns/wormhole_graphic.jpg

Here is a black hole.
http://structureofentropy.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/blackhole.jpg

A wormhole as you know is under intense pressure to contract. It needs an outward pressure about equal to the density of a neutron star.

If you could make a ring that is about as dense as a neutron star then you could theoretically open up a wormhole from a black hole.

(You could use my gravity creation hypothesis stated in the above post.)

Just make the ring much larger than the event horizon. (Since the ring is magnetic I would recommend using emp's to keep it from collapsing.) Then put that magnetic ring directly above the event horizon.

Finally try to stabilize the ring at the event horizon. Now lower the other massive ring over the event horizon.

Now since it is very massive it will tend to go toward the black hole.But it is being stopped by the magnetic ring. This is because the ring is repelled by the dense object. It does have to be a very strong magnet.

You will find that as that ring comes closer the black holes event horizon starts to evaporate rapidly. this is because of the wormhole growing larger.

As the event horizon becomes clearer then you will be able to see a wormhole growing increasingly larger than it was before.Finally the black hole is gone and in it's place is a stable wormhole.

Now my idea for the wormhole stabilization is to use the ring singularity's own gravity against it.

Since the ring singularity would have it's own properties, such as magnetism, it would repel the object.

But do to it's gravity it will bring it toward the ring singularity.Thus when the object goes to the ring singularity it would essentially increase the opening and then you could put a dense magnetic ring there.

Also stabilizing a wormhole.

gentillabdulla

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

When you try to sell the idea of a time machine that is not in the shape of a DeLorean & contains no Flux Capacitor you can't be offering anything but snake oil & magic beans...

I'm sure that you can use carbon nanotubes.

(It's a hint.)

challengemaster

gentillabdulla wrote: »

If there was a large spherical magnet at the center then the magnet would, due to it's polarity, try and move away.

This cannot happen due to the arrangement of the magnets.They will force the large spherical magnet to implode.This implosion brings the mass it has inward.

Sorry, what now?

get a few magnets, arrange them, and suddenly one implodes? I think there's a small problem there...

Also, another small problem with your theory.... The earth is essentially, a large spherical magnet. According to you, it should have imploded by now, no?

gentillabdulla

challengemaster wrote: »

Sorry, what now?

get a few magnets, arrange them, and suddenly one implodes? I think there's a small problem there...

Also, another small problem with your theory.... The earth is essentially, a large spherical magnet. According to you, it should have imploded by now, no?

Is the earth being compressed by other magnets which would cause the implosion? (Hint: no)

So, no you are wrong.
(Again the magnets are compressing the spherical magnet with their magnetic fields.This would cause it to implode after it went past a certain radius. It is formally known as the Schwarzschild radius.)

Xios

How much energy would you need to compress the spherical magnet to a singularity?
Perhaps the entire output of Anteras (the star) during it's whole life?

gentillabdulla

Xios wrote: »

How much energy would you need to compress the spherical magnet to a singularity?
Perhaps the entire output of Anteras (the star) during it's whole life?

The energy is comparable to a supernovae of a star that is about 3.2 solar masses.

sponsoredwalk

gentillabdulla wrote: »

(But something most of us don't know it wasn't Einstein who created the idea for a spacetime continuum but Minkowski, one of Einstein's teachers at the ETH Zuric.)

Why do you keep on making these ridiculous statements?

gentillabdulla

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Why do you keep on making these ridiculous statements?

Just because a lot of us here know that doesn't mean average people do.

I felt it was an interesting fact that deserved notation.

gentillabdulla

Here's a link to where it says what I stated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Minkowski#Life_and_work

old_aussie

What a load of crap, gentillabdulla

The plan will not work.

gentillabdulla

old_aussie wrote: »

What a load of crap, gentillabdulla

The plan will not work.

Would you mind explaining?

sponsoredwalk

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Just because a lot of us here know that doesn't mean average people do.

I felt it was an interesting fact that deserved notation.

Again, why do you keep making statements that show people who don't understand physics to be just average?
Or lacking imagination?

Physics isn't some elitist club, please stop making statements that make it out to be so, it's getting tiresome.

Nobody is criticizing you for not understanding the exact mathematics for a specific physics situation and, if we follow your logic, we should have every right to make you feel foolish for not knowing exactly what you're talking about when you talk abut a space-time diagrams, let alone time machines :rolleyes:. Stop patronizing people or we'll pull out those difficult questions that wikipedia wont be able to answer for you to show you exactly what you're doing to human beings when you talk about them.

I understand you like physics, but please try not to insult "average" people because they do not know, or care, about Minkowski.

old_aussie

If what you say is possible every government in the would want your plan.

Wikipedia, from where you keep quoting is just science fiction.

gentillabdulla

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Again, why do you keep making statements that show people who don't understand physics to be just average?
Or lacking imagination?

I understand you like physics, but please try not to insult "average" people because they do not know, or care, about Minkowski.

Excuse me it wasn't me it wasn't an insult.

I never said all people lack imagination either.

Why are you putting words into my mouth that I never said anyway?

I see no reason for it.

gentillabdulla

old_aussie wrote: »

If what you say is possible every government in the would want your plan.

Wikipedia, from where you keep quoting is just science fiction.

It's even stated in the book The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose.

I just used Wiki for a link on the internet.

None have you have even heard the right plan so I don't see why you guys are doing this.

gentillabdulla

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Nobody is criticizing you for not understanding the exact mathematics for a specific physics situation and, if we follow your logic, we should have every right to make you feel foolish for not knowing exactly what you're talking about when you talk abut a space-time diagrams, let alone time machines :rolleyes:. Stop patronizing people or we'll pull out those difficult questions that wikipedia wont be able to answer for you to show you exactly what you're doing to human beings when you talk about them.

I am telling you to please ask me those questions.

It's not too be cocky I am just a kid who wants to learn. I would also like to know how smart I am compared to you guys.

Again not a challenge but just asking you to ask me questions.

Xios

gentillabdulla wrote: »

The energy is comparable to a supernovae of a star that is about 3.2 solar masses.

And where do you propose to gather this energy? And store it? and Channel it into the magnets. The only way you can have any proof that your idea will work, is in the maths, and from what i've gathered, you're not yet skilled in the mathematics of physics. Best of luck amassing the energy of a dieing sun, btw, don't incinerate us all.

gentillabdulla

Xios wrote: »

And where do you propose to gather this energy? And store it? and Channel it into the magnets. The only way you can have any proof that your idea will work, is in the maths, and from what i've gathered, you're not yet skilled in the mathematics of physics. Best of luck amassing the energy of a dieing sun, btw, don't incinerate us all.

Getting that energy is something much beyond us today much less changing it.

Math is the problem for me right now.

Not a problem as in I am not good in math but as in I need a teacher to help me.(I am a fast learner though, if I do say so myself.)

I know the math behind some models that I study a lot. But it's only for those specific models.

I can try and learn but there is only a certain extent to what I can learn in my current state.

If anyone wants to help me with learning advanced math I will be willing to listen.

Xios

So you've basically got the idea in your head, of which you are certain it will work, based on no mathimatical data, but yet you've still gone to state that other theories are incorrect based on nothing more than your imagination.

I think that your ideas are nothing more than wishful thinking, caused by you not knowing all the pieces of the puzzle, or perhaps you are ignoring the parts that disprove your theory whilst seeking to find ideas to reinforce your theory. Creationists tend to do this.

So i must ask, why the push for publicity? It seems rather silly to me, it's like you're a race car driver, and you're boasting that you will win the next race hands down, but you've no engine in your car. You're firing blanks as far as i'm concerned. Good luck preaching to the ignorant, perhaps if you gather enough interest, you'll get some fools to invest in your studies and ideas.

gentillabdulla

Xios wrote: »

So you've basically got the idea in your head, of which you are certain it will work, based on no mathematical data, but yet you've still gone to state that other theories are incorrect based on nothing more than your imagination.

I think that your ideas are nothing more than wishful thinking, caused by you not knowing all the pieces of the puzzle, or perhaps you are ignoring the parts that disprove your theory whilst seeking to find ideas to reinforce your theory. Creationists tend to do this.

So i must ask, why the push for publicity? It seems rather silly to me, it's like you're a race car driver, and you're boasting that you will win the next race hands down, but you've no engine in your car. You're firing blanks as far as i'm concerned. Good luck preaching to the ignorant, perhaps if you gather enough interest, you'll get some fools to invest in your studies and ideas.

You have to think about what I am doing in the old theory.

Basically I am just switching gravity with electromagnetism.

It would produce the same effect but with much more energy required.

It is just really simple but very hard to do.

But the new one, which I have complete faith in, agrees with everything that I know and am still hearing about physics.

So far I haven't heard a single thing that negates my time travel process.

A friend of mine who you may have heard of agreed to help me carry on the new experiment.Though it doesn't cost a lot I don't have the tools to build it and John has agreed to help me.


I did however give a hint that it uses these things called carbon nanotubes.(And 2 elementary particles.)

Though I DO believe in quantum mechanics.

My theory actually uses a component of quantum mechanics to produce an effect which can cause time travel.

I do base some math on it.(Such as the math used to find the gravitational field, the math to see how much strong the effect has become over a period of time, the math needed to calculate how far back in time you could travel, and the math needed to find the time needed to produce the effect.)

I just meant I needed a teacher to learn trigonometry( I only have a basic understanding here), or calculus (I have a pretty good understanding here so not much work needs to be done).

tullibardine

Interesting thread, pretty sure I've heard this theory before, about 10 years ago. The guy came to the conclusion that you would need the energy of a super nova for it to work however. I don't recall anyone bothering to discredit it as there isn't any point in doing the work. It may have been a Horizon program.

gentillabdulla

tullibardine wrote: »

Interesting thread, pretty sure I've heard this theory before, about 10 years ago. The guy came to the conclusion that you would need the energy of a super nova for it to work however. I don't recall anyone bothering to discredit it as there isn't any point in doing the work. It may have been a Horizon program.

Somebody could have told me that!:D

Improbable

I'll admit that I don't really know about physics to make any assumptions about what you're saying. But you have offered up no proof, no equations, no mathematical reasoning to show why this might even be plausible. All I can see is a half baked idea with a lot of technical jargon thrown in the mix.

If you have any scientific papers published in a peer reviewed journal, I would be happy to read them. Otherwise, throwing together a random bunch of ideas without any proof or evidence is not considered science.

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

I'll admit that I don't really know about physics to make any assumptions about what you're saying. But you have offered up no proof, no equations, no mathematical reasoning to show why this might even be plausible. All I can see is a half baked idea with a lot of technical jargon thrown in the mix.

Doesn't that sound a little weird.

You say you really don't know then you criticize me.

Just pointing that out.

But can you tell me why you think it is a "half-baked idea"?

Anyway I primarily use logic to come up with ideas.

I don't use math unless I get serious about an idea.

Improbable

gentillabdulla wrote: »

Doesn't that sound a little weird.

You say you really don't know then you criticize me.

Just pointing that out.

But can you tell me why you think it is a "half-baked idea"?

Anyway I primarily use logic to come up with ideas.

I don't use math unless I get serious about an idea.

Just because I don't know the physics behind the idea doesn't mean that I cant identify bad science, being a scientist myself. The reason I think its a half baked idea is because you offer no real scientific evidence to demonstrate that this would work. So can we assume that since you haven't used any maths that you're not really serious about this?

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

Just because I don't know the physics behind the idea doesn't mean that I cant identify bad science, being a scientist myself. The reason I think its a half baked idea is because you offer no real scientific evidence to demonstrate that this would work. So can we assume that since you haven't used any maths that you're not really serious about this?

Not particularly serious about the one stated in the beginning, due to energy requirements being enormous.

But it is based on some theories such as relativity for instance.

However, I am serious about my new solution and I have math that backs it up.

Improbable

Can we see this math? is it published somewhere?

gentillabdulla

Improbable wrote: »

Can we see this math? is it published somewhere?

Check your private messages.