Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Time Travel 2


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

#1 HolgerL

HolgerL

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 26 March 2002 - 04:56 PM

Renate asks about time-travel forward in time in a thread down below.
I would like to ask:

If time-travel will be possible sometime, how come we don't get visitors from the future, today?
Isn't the fact that noone is visiting us the best proof of the impossibility of timetravel?

#2 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 28 March 2002 - 01:19 AM

Well, Stephen Hawking has a neat answer to this one: he says that one reason may be that it will not be possible to travel further back in time than to the date when the time machine you travel with was created.

For example: If I create a time machine today, it will always be possible to travel back and forth in this time machine - but not further back than today.

How far you could go in the other direction, though, I know nothing about. Perhaps until the day it is taken in by the feds due to tax evasion on behalf of the owner? ("We have uncovered an anomaly in your bank account - it has grown by $1 per day for 40,000 years and we would like to take a closer look at this strange machine of yours."). But then he can quickly enter the machine, go back and fix his problems...

Tormod

#3 administrator

administrator

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 01 April 2002 - 04:00 AM

Here is a question I found hard to give a reply , I am still without an answer , it went on the lines like this=

If you had a spacecraft that could travel at light speed or faster then which way would you point your ship if say you wanted to travel to the future or back in time Posted Image

Would you then come back to a rich stephen hawkings after depositing a single dollar for him after 40,000 years or would you still have a dollar to invest for say stephen hawkings
Posted Image

#4 administrator

administrator

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 01 April 2002 - 09:44 PM

assuming you're serious...

General relativity permits time travel in the forward direction only. The spatial direction of the traveller is irrelevant, but as the velocity of the traveller approaches c, time slows relative to the 'stationary' reference frame. This means that one way time machines already exist; any astronaut that has flown on a high speed space craft has travelled into the future, albiet by a small fraction of a second.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Kip thorne has popularized an application of General relativity which through the use of a wormhole where one end is stationary and the other in motion, creates a tunnel to the past. I personally disagree with Thorne, primarily because he ignores the necessity of matter moving THROUGH dimensional space to create time dilating effects. His model moves space through space, which should create no net dilation.

In terms of reverse time travel, I think this would much more likely be accomplished by creating a specialized gravitational field that reverses time flow with intensity. Also, there is some promising research in optics that utilize q. mechanics for reverse time travel.

#5 kilduh

kilduh

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 20 May 2002 - 11:24 PM

Posted Image How would we know if someone visited us from the future? Some how I don't think they would be announcing it and if they did the nearest asylum is probably where they are. Or is it
will be or have been?

#6 kilduh

kilduh

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 20 May 2002 - 11:48 PM

Posted Image I'm afraid I would have to disagree with the VERY esteemed Mr Hawking. You can't travel back in time by isolating an object and then making it go back through time.You must isolate the object from the universe and the make the universe go back in time.(Or at least the local area.ie the distance light travels in a year times the number of years you want to travel back in time. Apply the measurement you get to a spheres radius.That's a local area.) Somewhat energy intensive but works without paradox and violates no laws of physics.

#7 Noah

Noah

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 22 May 2002 - 06:46 AM

Although there is some contraversy as to whether we can actually travel backwards in time, I saw something that said (assuming we can travel backwards) even if people from the future traveled backwards in time, we could not see them, but they could see us. I am not sure about all the details of this theory, but it was neat.

Noah

#8 6unofabitch

6unofabitch

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 19 July 2002 - 12:34 AM

<< Posted Image How would we know if someone visited us from the future? Some how I don't think they would be announcing it and if they did the nearest asylum is probably where they are. Or is it

will be or have been?
>>



Good point. That guy with the big red alcoholic face that sits in the park and talks to his shoes all day just might be a time traveller who was driven to drink and madness by a society that would not believe...

Posted Image

#9 Eugene

Eugene

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts

Posted 19 July 2002 - 01:36 AM

Forget about it, gang! Time is not a dimension....just a tool for describing a specific relationship between mass, distance and velocity. "Mmmm...goo good..." - Homer Simpson
Eugene

#10 CD27

CD27

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 06:39 PM

for one thing, if anyone went through time, it would always change history, because someone just seeing you could make them change their mind and then they could make a bad decision and do something they wouldn 't have done if they had just not seen you in the first place. but another thing, i don't belive that when people time travel they use a machine to do it. i belive that they use their very own brains and minds to do it. here, let me tell you my theory on the subject, it is a copy and paste of a forum i posted on www.physicsforums.com


<DIV class=smallfont>space and time travel with the mind </DIV>
<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1>

<DIV>Recently, I went through a sort of "stage" where i wanted to disprove everything worth disproving, and we all know, if you move one card at the bottom of a stack, you change quite a bit. What i did was try to figure out the atomic theory structure. I wanted to see if it was right. I came up with the conclusion that it has to be missing something, to have as many flaws as it does. And in the process of doing that, i ran across an amazing discovery, it is yet to be tested, to even be true or not, i have absolutely no mathematics to it, i myself am no mathematician, but i have a good understanding in physics. I belive i have figured out how to time travel with the mind inside you. Now, if you dont belive in the spiritual dimension, turn away now, because this theory revolves around the belief that there is one. And i dont want anyone getting "angry" because i belive something they do not, that is pure ignorance. Ok, i was trying to figure out where the connection of the physical and spiritual worlds were. It is obviously there, somewhere, because our spirit is able to control our physical body and yet be a "spirit" at the same time. This means that is connected to the physical world through a hole structure and not a solid structure. Put it this way, if you take a crochet blanket: the holes will represent inol energy (i will explain inol energy in a minute) and the solid lines represent the physical and spiritual worlds. the inol energy, in the crochet blanket, works in small groups and not as one whole, so if you were to try and control them in this state, you could only control one at a time. While on the other hand, if they were like a comforter blanket, it acts as a whole and you could control them all as one large group of inol energy. Now, let me explain what inol energy is exactly. I was trying to understand the atomic structure, but it just didn't fit right with me. Negative and positive charges, attraction and repulsion, they just didnt mix together. I discovered that without some force to push the electrons away from the protons it would cause a catostrophic end of the atomic structure, and i didn't want to see that. Some people tell me that it is the force of the electron's high speeds that holds it away from the proton. That is false, electrons can not move that quickly without causing a constant electrical disturbance, and from what i can see, i dont get electricuted constantly, do you? I didn't think so. I aggree, the electrons move relatively fast, but not fast enough to overcome the laws of electrical forces. Yea, it's a simple idea, but if they were even able to move fast enough to keep from falling into the atom, well they would end up colliding with each other and we would see little electrical "pops" in mid air all the time, but we dont. So i thought id try and fix the problem. My solution said that electrons have negative charges (which we already know) and that all negative electrical charges ONLY repel, never attract. Well that goes completely against what i was taught in high school. So i had to fix that as well; i belive i have. I included the inol force, from inol energy. Inol energy has no time or particle intervention. Basically the element of time travel. In ANY electrical charge or force, which ever direction the inol energy is flowing is also where the electrical forces flow. Now this

#11 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 08:59 PM

Originally posted by: CD27
Recently, I went through a sort of "stage" where i wanted to disprove everything worth disproving, and we all know, if you move one card at the bottom of a stack, you change quite a bit. What i did was try to figure out the atomic theory structure. I wanted to see if it was right. I came up with the conclusion that it has to be missing something, to have as many flaws as it does. And in the process of doing that, i ran across an amazing discovery, it is yet to be tested, to even be true or not, i have absolutely no mathematics to it, i myself am no mathematician, but i have a good understanding in physics. I belive i have figured out how to time travel with the mind inside you. Now, if you dont belive in the spiritual dimension, turn away now, because this theory revolves around the belief that there is one.


This is a Scince based web site. If you want to waste time with hocus pocus mumbo jumbo, your in the wrong place.

If you want to pretend to even attempt a science based discussion, you need to provide valid factual proof for all your assertions. None of this "blindly accept or it don't work" garbage.

#12 Uncle Martin

Uncle Martin

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 09:43 PM

CD27,

WHAAAAT? Jello? Before you refute science you should consider learning something about it. Making it up to suit your spiritual needs is male bovine excrement! Your entire post is nonsense. The "and da da da etc." statement is my favorite part. After jello and inol energy)

#13 CD27

CD27

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 09:46 PM

well, i could of course be a completely rude person, like yourself, but i am not that cruel to people who could possibly be my friends in the future. you can think what you want, and i could care less what your oppinion states about my theory, i'm just glad that you have one. if my theory offends you, oh well, i am not about to stop posting it just because you get a little tingle in your throat that says it is "hocus pokus". trust me, if i thought it was garbage, i would never had posted it. obviously i have not posted the rest of my sign in name, it was to long to keep on retyping. let me enlighten you. it is christian_dude_27...note "christian". i also asked you to turn back if you don't belive in the spiritual dimension. you did not, you became offended, that is your problem, not mine or anyone else's. so do us all a favor, shut up and just leave, like i referred in the first place to non-believers.

#14 CD27

CD27

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 10:44 PM

i tend to get rather tired of seeing the exact same quote used over and over again with no meaning what so ever. perhaps you could explain it to me uncle martin. and by the way, the jello thing was not orriginolly thought up by me, i am just using it to update my own theory. if you wish to find out who really wrote the theory about spacetime being a jello like substance, go to google and search for jellotivity. the guy who wrote it is extremely smart, so, jsut read what he has to say. then you'll see why i said it was like jello.

#15 Uncle Martin

Uncle Martin

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 10:59 PM

I apologize for being rude. I'm going to opt out for now and let Tormod and Frethinker have their way with you tomorrow.

Good luck

#16 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 11:04 PM

Originally posted by: CD27
let me enlighten you. it is christian_dude_27...note "christian".

In what way do you think this "enlightened" anyone here? Your Christianity was so obvious you should have loaded a dead man on a stick image for yourself.

so do us all a favor, shut up and just leave, like i referred in the first place to non-believers.

Ya we know how you loving Christians have loved killing off the non-believers in the past. Oh for the good ole days hey?
This is a SCIENCE site. If you want to carry on a scientifically valid discussion, please do so. Buit don't come here thinking you can spew what ever convoluted nonsense you wish and have it treated with the respect reserved for information that was gained thru legitimate research.

If you want the assertion of a soul to be accepted, prove one exists first.

If you can't, the only intellectually honest option is to not try to bring it into the discussion.

#17 CD27

CD27

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 179 posts

Posted 03 June 2004 - 11:30 PM

for one, the christians "in the past" were not "real christians". those christian did kill and murder, last time i checked, i don't see any true christians today kiling anyone unless it is slef defense. if you're going to say that christians kill people all the time, prove it. i don't have to prove anyhting to you, you either belive it or you don't, that's all. i live by faith that there is a spirit, if you don't oh well tough for you i don't care. get a life and stop bugging me on this. i'm not forcing anyhting on anyone, so chill out. ok, i'm asking you. PLEASE leave me alone on the topic. if you don't like it, it's not my fault. i can't rub your feet and make you feel better. this is a free country, or at least i hope it is, that is what america stands for. i don't know if you live there or not, but i do, and i know i have a right to post what i want where i want. if i insult you by posting my belifs, oh well too bad get used to it. you are not forced to read it.