pokie Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Hi, everyone.Humbly, I admit I'm not smart enough to build a time machine. I'm also not smart enough to acquire the resources - cash - to hire some of you bright folks to create a time machine for me. (Sigh. Emphasis added.) But I want a time machine. With that in mind, I can only add what I can add and perhaps indirectly inspire one of you in the quest.Everything has a natural frequency. Would it be possible to travel in time if one were to somehow disrupt the natural frequency of the universe? Could a person somehow encapsulate oneself, perhaps in a shield of energy, disrupt the natural frequency of the universe and perhaps by using certain oscillations of the energy, travel forward and back through time?Alternatively, perhaps a resonance would be reached resulting in explosion involving death or personal injuries…. Or be crushed within the unseen dark matter.Go easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwagen Posted March 26, 2014 Share Posted March 26, 2014 Well, the first step, I guess, would be to figure out the frequency of the universe. Do you know it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokie Posted March 28, 2014 Author Share Posted March 28, 2014 Thanks for the comment.No, I do not know the frequency of the universe.I did read-up on strings. "NOVA | Elegant Universe | Resonance in Strings | PBS"My idea doesn't really make much sense in the end. If we could vibrate something faster than anything has been vibrated, it would then, only be the fastest thing that's ever vibrated. Back to the drawing board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Time travel is not simply a matter of finding a smart person and giving him or her money. Nobody has invented a time machine. The kind of time machine one sees in sci-fi movies is impossible. There is a loophole or two in physics that has kept us from ruling out the possibility of time travel altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekan Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Nobody has invented a time machine. How do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Everything has a natural frequency. Does it? I see this stated quite frequently. I wonder where the idea comes from ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Does it? I see this stated quite frequently. I wonder where the idea comes from ... Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokie Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share Posted March 31, 2014 Does it? I see this stated quite frequently. I wonder where the idea comes from ... The 1940 bridge collapse and the shattering of glasses by singers are two examples, I suppose. However, perhaps it's just coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 The 1940 bridge collapse and the shattering of glasses by singers are two examples, I suppose. However, perhaps it's just coincidence. That shows that some things have resonant frequencies. Both examples of relatively simple systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 Quite. It is the "everything" that baffles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayflow Posted March 31, 2014 Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Quite. It is the "everything" that baffles me. This baffles me as well as everything includes every frequency and every wavelength. We can see into the past by powerful telescopes on Earth as well as in space, and since light travels at finite speeds, what we see was light emitted in the past. I don't know of anything that sees the future in physics, although sometimes dreams may be precognitive. Consider the following: Distances and Sizes One way to measure distances is if you know the size of an object. If you can then measure its apparent angular size, you can work out the distance: Sorry, only the first formula copied correctly. If anyone wants any of the correct other formulas, I can put them into text. Please do not ask for them all at once, because the time and tediousness involved. Given the geometry above, and if D≫r, (almost always the case in astronomy), then r=θD as long as θ is measured in radians (a radian is 180π degrees). Angles in astrophysics are often so small that even a degree is too large a unit to be convenient. We typically use arcminutes (one arcminute is 1/60 of a degree) and arcseconds (one arcsecond = 1/60 of an arcminute = 1/3600 of a degree). Fluxes and luminosities Luminosity L is the total amount of power put out by some object, and is measured in Watts. Flux f is the power we receive at our telescope, per unit collecting area, and is measured in Watts per square metre. They are related by the equation: f=L4πD2 where D is the distance to the emitting object. Spectra and the Doppler Effect A spectrum is a graph of flux per unit wavelength plotted against wavelength. It will often show emission or absorption lines due to particular elements. If an object is moving towards or away from you, these spectral lines will be moved in wavelength away from their normal wavelength λo. If you observe a line at wavelength λ, you can define a redshift z as: z=λ−λ0λ0 If this shift is due to the doppler effect, and the velocity v<<c (velocity much less than the speed of light - nearly always true), then: z=vc To measure a redshift, you will need to know what lines to expect, and what their wavelengths are in the laboratory. The following graph shows you some of the typical lines you would see in a star or galaxy. Note that not all stars will show all these lines, and there are a variety of other lines that in certain stars can be strong. The C-H line is due to vibrations in the chemical bond linking carbon to hydrogen in molecules. Hubble Law Assuming that the brightest star in every galaxy had about the same luminosity (not a good assumption), Edwin Hubble calculated their relative distances. He found that the distances correlated with redshift. Everything was moving away from us and the speed correlated with how far things were from us. The standard explanation is that space itself is expanding. Objects are not moving - they are just being carried apart by the expansion of space. This means that unless more matter is created, the density of the universe must continuously go down (same amount of matter spread over more space). The alternative is that more matter is appearing out of nowhere - this is called the “steady state theory”. The “Steady State Theory” predicts that the universe should always look the same. We actually observe, however, that the universe was different in the past (we can see the past by looking a distant objects). Quasars were more common and the microwave background emission comes from a time when space was opaque. Edited March 31, 2014 by Mayflow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokie Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share Posted April 1, 2014 Does it? I see this stated quite frequently. I wonder where the idea comes from ... If you google the Nova article I cited above, without the quotes, I think it's the third link down. I don't want to cut and paste their material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 If you google the Nova article I cited above, without the quotes, I think it's the third link down. I don't want to cut and paste their material. You could provide a link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/elegant-universe.html I don't see where that says "everything has a resonant frequency". This baffles me as well as everything includes every frequency and every wavelength. What baffles me is that people think "everything" has a resonant frequency, when this is quite obviously not true. Consider the following: Is this copied from somewhere? If so, why not say where and, rather than copying and pasting, just provide a link. It would also be useful if you explained why you copied all that text? How does it relate to the subject of this thread (whatever that is)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Please explain, where does any one get a notion from, that time travel and a time machine is possible? There is no way it is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokie Posted April 16, 2014 Author Share Posted April 16, 2014 So that's it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pokie Posted May 27, 2014 Author Share Posted May 27, 2014 Scientists to Create Wormholes for Photons to Travel Through Time http://digitalearthworm.blogspot.com/2014/05/scientists-very-close-to-creating.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Does it? I see this stated quite frequently. I wonder where the idea comes from ... Perhaps the number of times it is stated in a specified time period is the natural frequency of the universe. If we then takes Mayflow's fascinating contribution, assign the standard numbers to each letter, sum the entire thing and divide it by the square root of the first number, then we shall arrive at pokie's perceptive remark in post #3. My idea doesn't really make much sense in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Scientists to Create Wormholes for Photons to Travel Through Time http://digitalearthworm.blogspot.com/2014/05/scientists-very-close-to-creating.html It's a theoretical (i.e. untested) idea that rests on the existence of something that's never been observed. IOW, there are assumptions involved that have not been checked. "Even if these calculations are completely correct…" This isn't accepted physics. You can't cite as if it were true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now