Regarding UFO's and time travel

[False_Peace]

Ive read the stories about John Titor and time travel, and im also interested in UFO's. Heres a theory, or an idea that ive sort of formulated combining the two. Titor thinks that UFO's could be time travelers that have highly futuristic machines. Now most people have figured that these highly futuristic UFO time travelers are from earth. Who's to say that they arent time travelers from another planet? Now I know Titors time travel device could not travel to another planet, but if these UFO's are far more advanced then what prevents them from traveling in time to another planet? So in a sense im saying that if there is other life out there its probably on the same level of technology as us, but perhaps like Titor they also have time travelers that have somehow found away to travel in time to our planet instead of just theirs. It makes sense to me that if you could travel in time to other planets worldlines, why would you want to travel a trillion light years in a space craft which perhaps could be impossible to do.

 

[2inquisitive]

The John Titor story may be interesting, but based on physics as we
know them today, would be impossible. A means of travel to the
future is entirely possible according to Special Relativity's time dilation.
A traveler moving through space at speeds NEAR the speed of light
would result in time passing much faster outside the craft than for the
traveler. The traveler could effectively move into the future, but the
only known way to move into the PAST would require speeds faster
than the speed of light. That's the problem. Physics as we know them
today sees the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit. Only massless energy moves at the speed of light (c) and nothing with
mass can even move at c, but can come very close with enough
propulsion. Thus you could move into the future but could never
travel to the past. Time dilation has an interesting benefit though.
It allows vast distances to be traveled in a relativily short period of
time FOR THE TRAVELER. You overestimate the distances involved.
Ever since the Betty and Barney Hill incident, in which Betty drew a
star map duplicating one she claimed to have been shown during
her abduction, Greys are speculated to have come from Zeta 2 Reticuli
by most researchers in the abduction field. Other supposed abductees have stated the same location, a planet orbiting the star
Zeta 2 Reticuli. There is, of course, no solid proof that abductions
actually happened. There is a star called Zeta 2 Reticuli, however,
and it is about 37 light years from earth. Traveling at speeds very
close to the speed of light, the distance could be covered in a few
months, via time dilation, without breaking the laws of physics. The
statements that it would take lifetimes to travel between the stars
are untrue, if the TRAVELER's lifetimes are the ones that are valid.
Visitors from another planet are not ruled out by current theory
while time travelers from the future are. That said, who knows what may be possible from a species far advanced beyond us?
A link to the Betty and Barney Hill incident and the star map:
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Zeta_Reticuli_Incident.htm

 

[kmguru]

The only way to travel very long distances would be dimensional shift if there is such a thing. Forget about going at or beyond the speed of light.

Having a stargate would not hurt either - built by some ancient folks....

 

[2inquisitive]

Originally posted by kmguru
The only way to travel very long distances would be dimensional shift if there is such a thing. Forget about going at or beyond the speed of light.

Having a stargate would not hurt either - built by some ancient folks....

=============================================
kmguru, how much do you know about the Special Theory of Relativity?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by 2inquisitive
The John Titor story may be interesting, but based on physics as we know them today, would be impossible. A means of travel to the future is entirely possible according to Special Relativity's time dilation. A traveler moving through space at speeds NEAR the speed of light would result in time passing much faster outside the craft than for the traveler. The traveler could effectively move into the future, but the only known way to move into the PAST would require speeds faster than the speed of light. That's the problem.

According to GR, twisted world lines - aka closed timelike curves - may be possible. This means that in principle, time travel to the past may be possible.

from Hyperspace by Michio Kaku
In 1988, three physicists (Kip Thorn...Michael Morris...and Ulvi Yurtsever...) made the first serious proposal for a time machine

We do have about six or eight proposed time machine designs now. No general agreement exist as to whether any of these designs would really work. Presently, it is not possible to build any of these "machines"; but in principle some designs might be possible to construct [or coordinate] someday. Still, even if it is possible to do the physics and then the engineering, the cost would likely be the problem. Time travel may simply be too expensive to ever attempt.

 

[Zantra]

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Hawking reference that in one of his books? I believe it involved a design about as large as half the solar system (I'm exagerating, but I remember it was huge). And requiring enormous amounts of energy?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zantra
If I'm not mistaken, didn't Hawking reference that in one of his books? I believe it involved a design about as large as half the solar system (I'm exagerating, but I remember it was huge). And requiring enormous amounts of energy?

Howdy partner!
We shall know soon which way the wind blows. It was a battle. There are numerous designs of such practical limitations. However, mostly this is a matter of energy. If we trace the energy production curve for the human race thoughout its history, it increases on the average at about 3% every 100 years I think...I don't know the number for sure. The point being that this is an amazingly stable number over the very long haul. Using this, we can extrapolate to the day where we might harness such enourmous energies. This is where Kaku and others come up with the Type I - type IV beings. These designations are really ones based on the energy generating capacity of a civiliation.

 

[kmguru]

Special Theory of Relativity

Einstein's theory of special relativity results from two statements -- the two basic postulates of special relativity:

1. The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.

2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial (that is, non-accelerated) frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

Length Contraction and Time Dilation
One of the strangest parts of special relativity is the conclusion that two observers who are moving relative to one another, will get different measurements of the length of a particular object or the time that passes between two events.

Consider two observers, each in a space-ship laboratory containing clocks and meter sticks. The space ships are moving relative to each other at a speed close to the speed of light.

Using Einstein's theory:

Each observer will see the meter stick of the other as shorter than their own, by the same factor gamma (- defined above). This is called length contraction.

Each observer will see the clocks in the other laboratory as ticking more slowly than the clocks in his/her own, by a factor gamma. This is called time dilation.

In particle accelerators, particles are moving very close to the speed of light where the length and time effects are large. This has allowed us to clearly verify that length contraction and time dilation do occur.

Time Dilation for Particles
Particle processes have an intrinsic clock that determines the half-life of a decay process. However, the rate at which the clock ticks in a moving frame, as observed by a static observer, is slower than the rate of a static clock. Therefore, the half-life of a moving particles appears, to the static observer, to be increased by the factor gamma.

According to relativity, moving clocks tick more slowly than static clocks.

 

[2inquisitive]

Yes, kmgruru, that is the basis for special relativity. I am not a
physicist and have a very limited understanding of special relativity,
but what I was questioning was your apparent belief that vast
distances could not be covered in a reasonable amount of time
while traveling less than the speed of light. I don't know exactly
what you term a vast distance, for instance between stars in our
section of the galaxy, or between distant galaxies. As a craft gets
closer and closer to the speed limit of light, time passes slower
and slower for the traveler. If it were possible travel at c, time would
stop, then reverse when traveling faster than c. Travel at or above
c is not possible under the laws of relativity, but travel very close
to c is not forbidden. Traveling at .999999c would result in 1000
light years of distance covered in 1.41 years of travel time for the
traveler. A tiny increase in speed above that would shorten travel
times considerably. I have seen it often stated that mass would
approach infinity as an object nears c. From what I have read by
some supposed experts in relativity, the increase in mass is seen
in an outside frame of reference, the actual object traveling would
see no increase. In other words, a particle in a particle accelerator
becomes more massive because it is being pushed by an outside
source, the electromagnetic fields of the particle accelerator itself.
If the particle were accelerated by its own power source, there
would be no increased mass to overcome. A craft driven by its
own internal power would not have to deal with mass that was
approaching infinity as it accelerated closer and closer to the
speed limit of light. At least, that is what I am led to believe after
much reading on the subject. Again, I am not a physicist and my
understanding could be wrong.

 

[kmguru]

what I was questioning was your apparent belief that vast
distances could not be covered in a reasonable amount of time
while traveling less than the speed of light.

How did you deduce that from my posting:

The only way to travel very long distances would be dimensional shift if there is such a thing. Forget about going at or beyond the speed of light.

Are you a news analyst?