Deloreans & Brundle-Pods

Some science fiction concepts are impossible... I used to believe Time Travel to be one of these things.  ...I think it's impossible to travel back in time at least. It's been proven perfectly possible to travel forward in time at a relatively different speed though.

The other day I was being quite lazy and was wishing for the invention of teleportation. Then I tried to think of how it would be possible. I think it is in theory. Scientist believe that wormholes exist in the universe but have yet to find any. A wormhole is a hole in space-time that would allow you to go from one place in the universe to another. If that's possible then surely it'd be possible to invent something to manipulate the edge of these wormholes, to change their size or to subtly alter their location... Then if that were possible then the technology wouldn't be too far away to create wormholes in the first place. This is how a teleporter would work.

Now I'm thinking that if you can create a wormhole in space-time then you could choose to manipulate it so that time is different at one end of the hole. Thus it actually is possible to travel back in time. However it would still be impossible to travel back to a time before the wormhole manipulator is invented. This explains the lack of any future tourists here now.

Magnets and Motion.

So, I was just messing with a wheel and a few magnets a while back, and I seem to have invented a perpetual motion machine.
A lot of people think that perpetual motion is impossible. The truth of the matter is, it's actually very possible to make a machine that will run on it's own... forever.

Here's how it works...
It's basically a horizontal spinning wheel with powerful magnets spaced evenly round the wheel's outer edge. We're talking really strong magnets... like the ones you get to clean a fish-tank.
Around the wheel there are other magnets that spin at a different rate (and in the opposite direction to the wheel) as the wheel magnets approach the spinning magnets. It is these spinning magnets that force the big wheel to spin. The magnets on the wheel are polarised N S N S etc.... and the outer spinning magnets spin to either attract opposite magnets or to repel similarly polarised magnets, so that the wheel will spin in one direction. This is more easily explained in the following highly detailed technical schematic:

The spinning magnets are powered by the main wheel, and the rate that they spin is dictated by the presence of a cam on the main wheel (as clearly indicated in the above and side views). In short, the spinning magnets spin faster as one of the wheel magnets goes past.

Now obviously I could build this and it wouldn't work immediately. (obviously!...I'm not stupid). What it would require for it to work is for someone to spin it to start it up.... but then once it's spinning it'll continue to spin under it's own steam until the end of time. Or until force of the magnets diminishes. I not sure if magnets will lose their power after a long time, but all it would need is for someone to occasionally replace the magnets after several years. That and a bit of oil for lubrication once in a while is all the machine needs maintenance wise.

So there you go. The Magnetic Perpetual Motion Machine will run forever. It's the solution to the world's energy crisis. It'll stop the need to use fossil fuels or nuclear power, and if I patent the idea, it'll make me a multi-billionaire. So why don't I make and market the idea? .... To be honest I can't be arsed. You do it. - I did you a drawing. What more d'you want? Leave me alone!...

The Space Telescopic Time Mirror!

Yes. That's what NASA should do.... send out a big unmanned space probe with a big mirror on it. Why?... so we can look at ourselves.... in the past!

Immediately I will say that I don't know for sure that someone isn't already doing this genius idea, as it seems quite an obvious one to me. But perhaps my idea is unique for the possible future applications a big space mirror would have.

I believe there are already space probes and space telescopes that are on a mission into to leave our solar system and head out into deep space. These send back more detailed pictures of the universe than we would get from out planet.

My proposal is such a space probe that will not only be able to transmit pictures from afar, but also have a telescope pointed back at the earth, with an incredible amount of detail. This amplified image will be reflected back in our direction by a giant space mirror on the craft. It needs to be pretty big because of the vast distance it will travel, so we can see it from earth.

Now here's the clever application. If the space craft/mirror goes far enough we will eventually be able to see back in time! It'll take a few decades (probably) but the accuracy of telescopic technology on earth should be able to keep up with the distance the craft will travel. The further from our solar system it gets the further back in time we will see the earth. ...to the point that we will be able to see past events from a certain amount of time ago.

Initially this could be used to solve crimes, maybe by pinpointing an individual's position at a certain time on a certain day. Eventually... (and maybe we're talking hundreds of years time) we'll be able to use this technology for historical research.
For every light-year the craft travels away from us, we will be able to see 2 light years into our past... as the light from earth has to travel to the telescope and back to the earth again.
And obviously it'll have duel use, it can also be used to view deep space. (when it's not solving Columbo style mysteries)

How will it be powered?  ... Initially, solar power. There should be enough power as it passes our sun to get up to a pretty amazing speed.   ...Then so long as it doesn't crash into a planet or moon, it will keep going at this speed forever. Laws of inertia state that if nothing's there to slow it down, it'll just keep going. With our next nearest star just over 4.2 light-years away, it won't be long before any loss in speed is regained. Nothing can go wrong.

World Peace.

Yep. This is the big one.

People often ask me how to bring about world peace*.  They say to me "Jon, please tell us your genius ideas on how to stop all wars."**
Well, I was thinking about this problem one lunch time around 6 months ago. I was eating a ham sandwich, and within a couple of minutes I'd formulated a solution and finished my sandwich. It goes something like this:

The premise is to have a world-wide collective of peaceful countries. I guess it'd be like the UN. But on a larger scale, and with certain rules. Each country would have benefits in joining this peace collective. (At the time I thought of it, I named it Peace Club, but that just sounds naff. From here on in, let's just call it the Peace Collective until someone comes up with a name that doesn't sound so hippy)

• Any country joining the Peace Collective will automatically reap benefits. Poor countries more so than richer countries. Each country will donate a certain percentage (tbc) of their national exports and/or money to be evenly distributed to all other countries in the collective. - If the country makes cars, then cars are given away, if the country exports rice then rice is given away. This set percentage will remain the same and so the more joinees of the collective, the better it is for everyone.

• Each nation will not be allowed to declare war on any nation within or without the Peace Collective.

• Each nation that has joined will therefore reduce their armed forces drastically. Thus saving more money.

• If any nation within the Collective is attacked, then a Collective army will defend/intervene. This will be comprised of the various/numerous reduced-in-size armed forces of each nation. Therefore each country involved will have a standardised style of army training

Them's the rules. Stick with them and join the Peace Collective.
With more countries involved, the greater the benefits for those involved (including imports and armed forces protection). Thus every country will want to join.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking:
1) This sounds a bit like communism on a global scale.
2) What about the rich countries? Surely they'll be paying for most of this?
3) What about all the religious wars that are ongoing?

Well let me answer by saying:
1) Yep. That's exactly what it is. Communism is wrong on an individual/national scale... but on a global scale, the world will be a better place. After many years it'd even things out and then it will all seem fairer.
2) Well, yeah they will. To begin with. But surely the reduced cost of America's (come on. That's who we're talking about, and you know it) defences will save them so much money over the years. This is a long term plan. Where everyone wins eventually.
3) Well once most of the world was on the side of the collective army, global impartial decisions will be made to reduce such skirmishes in the middle east.

Ok, so world peace isn't goint to be instantaneous, but it's only gonna take a few decades/generations for it to actually come about. But it would happen. This idea would work. You may say I'm dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

Obviously there's the finer details to iron out, but I think I've sorted out the main issues. There would be no one leader for this Peace Collective. But if people absolutely insist on having a president/king of the world, then they can do far worse that giving the position to the genius who thought up the scheme.

I will now take your questions...




* They don't. It's a big lie.
** Again, no-one has ever asked me this.

The Space Lift & Lunar Aqua Park!

Here's a couple of genius ideas I had at the same time. They're a good example of ideas that might sit at either end of the actual genius spectrum.

A Lift Into Space!

Possibly not to scale.

In 2002 I came up with a genius idea of an easier way to get people into space. A lift, that would climb up a really strong cable to a geo-stationary satellite. Then once they're up there, they people can get into their spaceships that are conveniently parked in orbit. Thus saving on all that oh-so-expensive rocket fuel. Oh how my colleagues laughed.
But then, around 2 years later I read in the Metro that this was exactly what scientists were working on. Had NASA stolen my idea?  ....well no. A quick shufty on wikipedia tells me that the idea had been around for over 100 years.
Great minds, eh? This has to be my first proven genius idea. (and it surely is a genius idea - NASA's spent millions on the research already).

The 22-year-old me was so smart. I remember that day, I was on a roll. Later that afternoon I also came up with...


The Lunar Aqua-Park!

I also told my colleagues about this one. Genius it is... and before I explain it to you, please bear in mind that this can be done, but only in the far distant future... and by a company/person with extreme wealth and little consideration for the future of life on our planet.
The concept is a simple one: A water park on the moon. Can you imagine it?  ...You'd have loads of water slides, shoots and swimming pools. All housed in some giant geodesic domes. It'd be like CentreParks in space. But of course, the difference being there is much less gravity on the moon. It'd be awesome.

Now here's the genius bit. ('What Jon? Was that not the genius bit already.... the general concept?' .... Well yeah, but it gets better.) One of the attractions in this park is a ride that tunnels through the ground right through to the centre of the moon  ...and there would be a giant cavern carved out, and about 4 swimming pools worth of water dumped in there.  The water would all float like a liquid sphere in the centre of the moon and people would dive in from all angles. I call it The Lunaquasphere™. How cool would that be in the centre?... swimming about with every direction being up. And also, because there's less gravity, you could dive in from much higher and not hurt yourself. Brilliant eh?  ... Nothing can go wrong. Although, like I say, I've not really looked into the earthly repercussions of having a big hole into the centre of the Moon. If the Moon lost some of it's mass, it may actually affect the Earth's tidal patterns, seasons, the Moon's orbit round the Earth, and possibly even the Earth's orbit around the sun. It would certainly jeopardise the future of life on Earth...  Still, imagine all the fun you could have in a Lunaquasphere™.

My Theory On Gravity: Part I (The Situation of the Gravity)

Having read Brian Cox(not that one)'s excellent book 'Why Does E=mc² (and why should we care?) last year, I discovered that scientists don't actually know what gravity is.
They know what causes a gravitational field (Mass) and how to calculate and indeed predict what gravity will be in any given scenario... but they don't know why it exists.

Also, the book tells of a universal equation, that accounts for everything... ever. It's about why everything is like it is, and behaves and looks the way it does, and accounts for 3 of the 4 known forces in the universe (the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism).
Gravity doesn't fit into the equation though. Which is why I came up with a theory...


My theory concerns the fact that gravity isn't really a force in itself, but the effect of distorted space-time. It goes something like this:...

Space-time is distorted around objects. If there was no matter in the universe, spacetime would be constant, but throw a few planets in there, and it's like pushing some marbles into a sponge. The marbles displaces the sponge... the sponge that is displaced is denser nearer the marbles. Perhaps that's a bad analogy...
But if space-time behaved in this way, if it was compressed outward somewhat (depending on the mass and density of the planet) then it would naturally want to spring back to it's original shape. This would mean there would be a constant natural force towards a planet... which would be greater if the planet was larger and/or denser. (this also explains the formation of a black hole when a star collapses)

The other 3 forces relate to how non-touching particles/atoms react around each other within space. Whereas the "force" of gravity is pertaining to the actual shape of space. so it can't be considered a force.  ... Well it can, but it's not like the other 3. It's like (bad analogy alert!) comparing the attributes of 4 things, where 3 of the things are similar but very different, and the 4th thing is the universe.

The strength of gravity gradually dissipates the further from a planet you get.... to infinity apparently. You're still slightly affected by gravity of a planet on the other side of the universe (by an infinitely small amount), but you don't notice it much because of various other gravity creating phenomena closer to you. Particularly the planet you're standing on.

Anyhoo, in conclusion I will say that gravity doesn't and indeed can't fit in the universal equation because it's beyond it. To measure the distortion of space-time is like perhaps putting another dimension into an equation... To use one more analogy: When you know the maths to calculate out the exact area of a square when drawn on a flat piece of paper, then that's all good. But if you were a 2 dimensional being and all you knew was the 2 dimensional plane, then things would be different...When you draw the square on an apparently flat surface - but the surface was actually the surface of a sphere, then your calculations aren't going equal the actual area of the surface of the square you've drawn.

Any questions?