| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

Time Travel by Reworking Special Relativity: Full Essay.


Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.

We could make Time Travel work if we rewrote Special Relativity
We could make Time Travel work if we rewrote Special Relativity

Imagine if Time Travel meant you could meet anyone famous from history, Albert Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Isaac Newton, who would it be? And perhaps more importantly, what would you ask them? Would you choose Hitler, and ask him why the Jewish people? Or maybe Ceasar and tell him not to go to the Senate? Who knows. For each of us there's probably a different character and a whole multitude of different questions, from the sublime to the profoundly ridiculous. And anyway, if you could travel back, or forwards, could you really change anything!

Could you truly rewrite history, mould and shape historical events for a more compassionate or more prosperous outcome? I doubt it. We might like to think the fickle hand of fate can transform a sequence of events, wars and famine could be avoided, plagues and starvation eradicated.

But the truth is something totally different. What's done is done, and no amount of interference will alter the course of events or determine mankind's destiny. But more to the point, I can prove it!

Stephen Hawking wrote of time Travel: Time travel is not theoretically possible, for if it was they'd already be here telling us about it! Stephen's observation is astute to say the least.

It would seem logical. But just maybe there is other explanations, imponderable's and abberations that forbid any future traveller from revealing the secrets of dimensional travel. Maybe they have a code. They're forbidden from telling us, and if that's the case and adventurers do travel back in time and alter the course of history, we wouldn't know it's been altered. History would still be history, and the view of it we see would be as realistic as any other history, for we'd have absolutely no knowledge of what the alternative events were. They would have been erased.

Yet there are some flaws in the theory. How can you have time travel when no one really knows what time actually is? Surely time itself is no more than a conceptual facilitation to aid mankind's endeavours.

And although it might seem obtuse to suggest you can't have time, perhaps by stripping time from the universe we might be able to make time travel work.

It seems somewhat of a contradiction to suggest you can only have time travel by removing Time, but there are benefits to the hypothesis.

By rewriting Einsteinian special relativity, I managed to create a timeless universe. Rather than say, as Einstein did, that light first emits from a star and travels towards us, measured as light seconds, minutes, weeks, months and years, I chose to redefine the position where light first breaks. I placed it central to two bodies of mass, and allowed it to move two directions simultaneous. Therefore, two observers, around two stars, see the same pin-prick of starlight, equally at the same time. For neither, there is no recognition of a different point, place or time. To prove this, I locked in a measurable prediction.

I said, if one of the bodies of mass fluctuates, the pin prick of light must relocate its position, and subsequently the velocity of light must increase its acceleration so both observers still witness the said event equally and proportionately at the same time. And thus, regardless of their distance, or the duration light takes to reach each observer, if both checked their watch, they would both say the same time.

I expanded this thinking, and rather rebelliously insisted therefore, light doesn't travel anywhere, but gravity does. Indeed, what we get is the velocity of gravity, rather than the accepted velocity of light. The put the cat among the pigeons.

The reason I did this was to extrapolate Einstein's belief that we can only ever look longingly back down a proverbial tunnel of time. And with time removed from a universal equation, everything becomes possible: other planets, spacecraft, ufos, intergalactic travel, time travel. Although time travel would merely be a repositioning of the volume of mass at any given juncture in its history. It wouldn't necessarily mean moving any within the universe itself.

To understand this, think how people talk of ghosts. As an example. We here people, the newspapers, the television talk candidly of hog the qld lady dressed from head to toe in grey is often seen climbing the castle steps in the dead of night.

Curiously, most people don't ask why the old lady dressed in grey is always seen in the same place, climbing the same steps? There must be a reason for it: what?

Some people talk of the dead, an after life, a restless soul. Which all makes for good stories. However, if this person is a restless soul why not vary the haunting a little. Why not do the castle steps Monday night and the local cinema on Tuesday? I think the explanation is fairly simple, what we see is not a restless soul, but an impression in Time. A window on the past if you like. Obviously science would contest this, even when they claim to see universes creating themselves by means of large telescopes. It wouldn't be unreasonable to say, science can see the past, but the layman isn't quite clever enough too. At which point must ask ourselves, what creates these visions?

As science can see Galaxies compose themselves, I think we should assume these are no more a cosmological haunting than our example of the old lady dressed in grey. Realistically we should assume the two events are inextricably linked and both are formulated through the same cosmological criteria: the volume of mass at any given period in its history. If the viewed Galaxy in composition, witnessed by the scientist through a large telescope is produced by the motion of the universe, it is not unreasonable to promote a theory the apparition on the castle steps is produced under the same elementary laws of physics. If it wasn't, the old lady dressed in grey would no doubt find something more productive to do with her time: haunt the taxman I hope.

Bearing this in mind, we can draw a simple conclusion: we can view the past via a manipulation of physics. The volume of mass allows us to achieve this. We have evidence, some scientific, some anecdotal. Although I would argue the individual who sees the ghost is as scientific as the scientists who uses the telescope. Where's the difference, they're both look at an event which transpired some time ago, only one is aided with a piece of technological equipment: ie, a telescope. Therefore, what about the future?

Firstly, as ordinary members of the public, we have to ask ourselves, what would we expect to see in the future? We need to model a theory based on a firm belief. Would we expect to see old ladies dressed from head to toe in seventeenth or eighteenth century clothes, or a high-tech society based of the natural advancement of humanity through technology and science? Most sane people would say the latter, society will constantly evolve, the machinery improve and one day the sky will be full of flying saucers to replace aircraft, clothes will be fashioned from wond rous new materialism and the conceptual evaluation of human form change beyond recognition; humans might be ten foot tall, or three feet high: who knows? But what we do know, is any speculation or deviation from the established form around us is treated at best with hostility, at worse, with public humiliation.

And so what if someone reports a ufo, a large silver ship crossing the skies. Maybe they report it of a night time - with flashing lights. Maybe it's performing the most outrageous stunts. Accelerated speeds, disappearing from radar screens, vanishing into the unknown? These events are reported all the time to newspapers and magazines, the authorities and powers that be. Science pooh-poohs the idea. If a member of the public claims to have seen an even of the extraterrestrial kind, they are dismissed as mad, misinformed, deluded or plain daft.

Although no thorough investigation has taken place, or their claim forensically investigated by those with the ability to do so. Contrast this with renowned scientists who operate the Hubble telescope. Hubble was given the job of searching the deepest, darkest recesses of the universe. The project was called DeepField. According to Albert Einstein, Hubble should have reported back newly forming galaxies. These.galaxies should have been so old, they only appear as embryonic shells; Galaxies in their infancy, slowly constructing themselves in a cosmic, primordial soup. Yet Hubble didn't report any such thing. On the contrary. When the dust settled, and scientists had exhausted themselves, burning the midnight oil and proposing every logical answer, the results were dismissed.

The project was quietly forgotten about and the data filed in the Don't Know drawer. It was best not to rock the boat, contradict Einstein or upset the establishment. Careers could be ruined overnight, funding stopped. My god, people could be humiliated in public and treated as daft as anyone who claims to have seen UFOs. And no one was going to volunteer for that. It was easier to keep their mouth shut, their heads down below the parapet and hope the whole unfortunate episode simply vanished. Yet there is one logical explanation to Hubble's DeepField experiment, one I've realised, and I almost certain many other academics have too: The Hubble telescope wasn't looking backwards, it was looking forwards. It saw the future! And that presented all sorts of nasty problems. Einstein was wrong! The Big Bang Singularity is wrong! Hubble himself is wrong! Oh god, what to do?

With this in mind, it suggests the future is already there, and that means the universe must have originally composed itself, for if it didn't, the future would be there for us to observe in the first place. Therefore, its not unreasonable to speculate that those who claim to have witnessed UFO phenomena are actually witnessing our own future. If a Spacecraft produces its own volume of mass, then a comprehensive change should take place around it, as would a person ghost or what we term visitation of extraterrestrial species. Many people claim to have seen alien species, although little or no tangible evidence is in the public domain to prove such a claim. And maybe that's because it cannot be placed in the public domain. Maybe, under the laws of physics it becomes a theoretical impossibility to show tangible evidence of extraterrestrial existence as what these people claim to see, is no more than our future. It's not unreasonable to speculate, that if we see the past, then we can see the future. But how would we be able to see the future if it hasn't already happened?

When I postulated theory on an alternative to the Big Bang singularity, I showed how the universe might have been born from a single block of carbon. What I postulated was an idea where one universe acts as a catalyst for the next. As the first universe opens and expands because of the intense heat, a secondary place in the carbon would fracture. As the first universe cools and contracts, the second point fuses. From the central point energy races away, while all the material condenses to a strategical central point. Once all universal material is located in this place, the universe stops turning, then begins to unwind. This led me to believe not only in a preordained universe, but one which retains a steady-state principle. With results from the Hubble telescope DeepField experiment the evidence seems irrefutable. To comprehend the theory better, you might like to simplify things and imagine the universe like a video tape. It doesn't matter whether you run it forwards, backwards or stay where you are, at any given period in its history it will always play the same scene.

And so we deduce from the aforementioned, that we wouldn't so much have time travel, but more time windows. We would be able to see the past, and future but never be allowed to interfere with it, simply because our volume of mass would not match that volume of mass in the period in history you move to. The value of the particle becomes relative to its own distinctive period in history. Think of it like money. If someone from five hundred years ago came forward to today, and had say five pounds, they would find their five pounds is relatively worthless, whereas back in their own time, they would find their five pounds is a small fortune. Time, and particle matter would fair no different.

At this point we need to ask then, how could we view the past and future? Personally, I believe with a large electromagnetic field we would be capable of re-quantifying the particle physics and viewing anything think we wanted to do. By producing higher levels of electromagnetism the volume of mass will increase, and the past, which has already dissipated will reappear.

Alternatively, by extracting a surrounding electromagnetic field, the accelerated process of decay should logically set in, thus the future would appear in all of its finer detail. At the moment, Hubble is using infra-red detectors to see our future, but who knows what the future holds. Maybe we will see the future with specific type infrared spectacles, maybe will see the future with our own eyes. I don't know. But the prospect is an interesting one. Imagine being able to hover a large craft over an ancient Roman amphitheatre, and produce enough energy to make the past unfurl. As an entertainment system we could watch the gladiators tear each other to pieces, clear up any anomaly in history and clarify the past. On the other hand, we could look into the future, although I'd advise against it. By looking back we can do no harm. The past's the past. But the future is still to come. The real Pandora's box. The woes of the world are not what have gone before us, but what will happen in the ensuing millennia.

Imagine looking fifty years ahead. You see a nuclear Holocaust, mankind's planet has been reduced to an irradiated wasteland. Every living thing is dead. What would we do?

We could try and avoid the problem, dismantle all of our nuclear stockpiles and play safe. It'd seem logical. After all, if the weapons do not exist, how could the future predict a nuclear Holocaust. Quite simply. In mankind's desperate rush to destroy his weapons of mass destruction, he's screw-up, create an accident, and the resulting accident would lead to his demise. It's preordained.

What will be, will be. I'm afraid, if this postulation is accurate, we have a system of What You See Is What You Get. We wouldn't be allowed to tamper with humanity's destiny. And so my advice is this: if mankind, science, or some nutcase finally manages to build a machine that can look equally forwards as it can backwards, take a very big hammer and go and trash it otherwise human kind will drowned in their own fear. Failing this, take a big pen and write on the name plate: "Pandora." Because never would there be a more apt name for the prospect of your own demise.

  time travel  Time Travellers  Go Back  Time Machine by H. G. Wells.



  Go To Print Article  



Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |