Tim_Lou Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 so, travel back time is impossible. but traveling to another parallel universe that is SIMILAR to our past is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 hmmmmm...very interesting thoughts. ok, then if time travel is supposedly "impossible" you do not exist? nothing then exists. for something to exist it must have time. things age. why? because time is flowing. light takes years to reach us from other places in the universe. why? because time is flowing. if time can flow, then there msut be a past, present, and future, and if that is so then there must be a bridge somewhere somehow to get to every point. it's just like taking a single line. that line is made of thousands and thousands of points, all of which are accessable. the same exact things is with time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by: CD27hmmmmm...very interesting thoughts. ok, then if time travel is supposedly "impossible" you do not exist? nothing then exists. for something to exist it must have time. things age. why? because time is flowing. light takes years to reach us from other places in the universe. why?So that made an impression on you! Good! We have yet to hear how you resolve a 6,000 year old universe when you look at 10,000,000,000 year old light every night. Now, you need to learn about Relativity, both Special and General. But for the purpose of this discussion, the main thing you need to learn is that every event has FOUR dimensions. TIME is just as integral of a dimension of an event as it's X,Y,Z, co-ordinates. It is X,Y,Z,T for every event. Time does not "flow". Time is locked into spacial dimensions of events. That is why it is called the "Space Time Continuum". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 ....my good friend freethinker, i know all about special and general relativity. and i agree with them, yet i still can not answer your question about 6,00 year old earth and older light. probably won't for a very long time. but i do not yet know what a spce time continuum is. could you please explain it to me, in detail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 I do not understand the general relativity, I just heard a bit what it's about (and believe it's one of the most interesting things in physics). I cannot believe that you know all about general relativity if your aren't very good in math as you stated before. What you wrote as well is that you know a lot about physics, but didn't even know the quantistic model for the atom. Sincerily I do not not believe that you know all about general relativity, because I'm a physics student (at an university in Switzerland) and here General relativity is just an option in the last year, after you went throgh all the quantum mechanics, theoretical physics and so on, just to show the level one has to have to be able to understand it. You may have read some popular science books about GR, but that doesn't mean at all that you understand it full. You may make these claims about all knowing and goood understanding, with your friends who aren't scientific and them you will impress; here you speak mainly with scientific people so you don't have to (and actually hardly can) impress us with whatever know about science (showing that you know less than you say)! You just risk to make look yourself ridicoulous. So, tell us your ideas and theories, but stop saying how good you are and understand things, specially when you show later that you don't know as much as you said. About your signature, you should add "I'm wise, because I know not to know" Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 I just saw it now:you write:A) , i know all about special and general relativity and then: B) but i do not yet know what a spce time continuum is A) and B) exlude themselves mutually, so again stop balancing big claims!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 ok, let me guess here, i kinda think i understand what a spacetime continuum is..space..and..time....as a continuum. think that's it? lol. but litterally, i understand relativity, quite a bit of it actually, i'm jsut not very good at mathematics. you DON'T NEED MATH TO UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY. you need math to prove relativity, but not to understand it. when i finally caught on to what time dilation was, i was in my car riding down the road. i thought about what this book by Kip S. Thorne (Black holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageouse Legacy) and what it said about time dilation. inside my car, i was at rest. but the car was moving at approximately 70 m/h down the road. as i looked out the window, i noticed the trees and plants. the farther i loooked back, the slower it seemed the trees and plants moved by me. then i noticed another car, driving the oposite direction, and the person inside it was at rest just as i was, but the car itself was moving pretty fast as well. then i read some more in the book, it was talking about how, when in free fall, time moves a bit differently, almost seems tos top. einstein tested this by using two clocks. he took one, hung it on the celing, and the other he set next to a hole directly under the other clock. both clocks were sinchronized. he dropped the clock connected to the celing through the hole. when he got it back, the that clock was a few second slower than the clock sitting next to the hole. i know alot more, but i'm not about to type it all down. that book i read, and am only half way through, taught me a huge amount. probably because it's 600 pages long and i read 200 pages. so i got alot more to read and learn, i don't know EVERYTHING, and no one ever will, but i know alot more than the average person who has not yet gone through college. let's ee if i can't get this spacetime continuum thing. ok, you got space, and as freethinker said: "Time does not 'flow'. Time is locked into spacial dimensions of events. That is why it is called the 'Space Time Continuum'." and as eistein said about time dilation. when things move faster they 1) stretch out and 2) slow down relative to other things. so when mater or something at all bends space time, it causes time to move a bit slower relative to other things in the universe, but very small amount. perhaps i should let you read something of my other theory, Flexon Energy. one thing i must mention about that though, is that i no longer accept most of my theory, many things have been changed and leaerned since i wrote it. and this that i'm about to tell you is well, maybe accurate with how spacetime reacts to things in the universe. The Reverb Effect: The effect puling energy has on the world around us.The Magna Reverb Effect: The same as The Reverb Effect, only much larger, meant for large objects. The reason we don’t notice this effect is for two reasons: one, its part of our everyday lives, so we’re just as used to it as what Einstein said about time dilation here on earth, we don’t notice it. Two, it moves at near the speed of light, but it’s constant unless acted upon, so we don’t notice that either. Using an inertial reference frame, imagine slowing down the effect to being able to actually view it. Imagine the corner of your room; this will be the center of motion where the energy is being pulled, growing dim. You feel some heat exerting from it and you begin to notice a space and time dilation. Gravity grows stronger. If the pull becomes strong enough, you will begin to see visible light emitting from its center as the energies around it move farther up the electromagnetic scale. Of course, in real life, humans could never view such an event up close, because the heat and gravity would cause their death, unless of course you could somehow divert the effects from your body. That is The Reverb Effect, which occurs around small objects we see everyday. Of course the effect would not be as strong as I exaggerated, they would be many times smaller, almost to not even being able to see them. One law to this effect is: al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 1. plz dont show what you know about things. give us some opinions. 2. and plz dont criticize somebody else due to their lack of knowledge, if u dont know, thats fine. 3. math is used to prove general relativity... if NO PROVE IS PROVIDED, the theory of relativity CANNOT said to be right.(see, here is another example of blind believing. i feel so sad about this world. everyone just believes everything said in books! in books! but books are actually written by PEOPLE! and we are people! if it is the earth is flat, then everyone believes in it without proving it....) remember long time ago i asked why c^2+b^2=a^2 in a ellipse, that guy says (a student) "THE BOOK SAYS SO" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh my god!!!!! (i dont mean any offend. but, it is important (very) to have proofs, as "freethinker said" (again lol...)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 I do not know if you referred to me (I don't think it was me who said that but I'm not sure so I can't exclude it),.... Anyway, I agree (at least now) ideally everything should be proven by himself, nothing left in just believing. But in reality I think it's impossible to prove everything you use. I think one has to prove as much as he/she cans and believe what books say when you can't prove it, but in the second case one shouldn't claim perfect understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 for one, i've already seen and know that relativity has been proven through mathematics, but because i am not good at math, yet, mean si can not back up that statement. but i d have otehr resources who can. quite a few actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by: sanctusAnyway, I agree (at least now) ideally everything should be proven by himself, nothing left in just believing. But in reality I think it's impossible to prove everything you use. I think one has to prove as much as he/she cans and believe what books say when you can't prove it, but in the second case one shouldn't claim perfect understanding. Agreed. It is impossible to have proof for everything, but I think Tim was referring to a tendency we see among some posters (nobody in particular, and probably not you) to just either blindly accept anything at face value and claim it as the truth, or forget that the more extraordinary a claim is, the more some kind of proof is required for us to believe/accept it. I think you are pointing at an important thing: yes, it is valid to accept that what a book writes is "right". But as a reader one is responsible for checking the sources the writer has used. I think that is the most common fallacy - someone might post something stating that this or that book says so and so, forgetting that his source on the matter is a book written by someone who has no actual insight into the matter. Sorry if I'm off topic here, I just think it was worth commenting. We have another thread about proof elsewhere in the forums. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 tormor, i was just reading back over the past postings in thie thread, and i jsut noticed one that you had made before, i msut disagree with it. 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. if the time machnie moves back through time with you, in which i have reason to belive it does considering it is the one generating the power, then the time machine does still exist. it means it goes throught he exeact same senario you did. it was created, and then went back through time, and ended up in the past. well, so did you do all of those things. so, if that's the case, then time travel is possible. of course, IF THAT WAS THE CASE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 yes, many and many of the stuffs are self-proving. but these are the basic.science is like a building on a cloud...if we dont even have this cloud, no builing can be built. but the structure of this building is very important, everything is closely connected, and every is based on something below or the clouds. if we just made something not on the cloud, thats ok, but it is NOT science. it will be another cloud like religions.... so, if you wanna live in religions rather than science, no problem! (arh~ religion is somewhat connected to science nowadays lol....probably a bridge has built...) "But in reality I think it's impossible to prove everything you use. I think one has to prove as much as he/she cans and believe what books say when you can't prove it, but in the second case one shouldn't claim perfect understanding. "totally agreed. but what comes to discovery is proving these facts. you wanna live normally? ok, just believe stuffs in some official news... but if you wanna be something different, and go beyond, proof, is what you need! arh~ as to time travel.... i bet no one would ever come up this idea. people probably see too many movies and books on them... proofs of time travel?none, if time travel is possible, y no one comes to this time period and tell us somthing about it...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD27 Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 the reason no one tells you of time travel is because it would affect the future. it would be stupid to even open your mouth if you did go to the past. if i told you how time travel is possible, if i were to come from teh future, say a thousand years, perhaps humanity is not yet ready for time travel, perhaps we just don't know enough about its consequenses. and if i were to tell you how to do it a thousand years before you were supposed to know, imagine how much damage it could cause. it could change so much, and could ruin humanity forever, simply for telling us how to do somiething that we were not yet ready to do. in fact, i'm sure, if it is possible to time travel, when we do we probably still won't be ready for it. it takes experience and learning to be ready for something, and we have alot of other things as humanity in a whole to learn before we do anything like that. we are still in the very low stages of learning these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 (error again...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 (error....err!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 "the reason no one tells you of time travel is because it would affect the future"ok, so travling back in time is impossible "ok, then if time travel is supposedly "impossible" you do not exist? nothing then exists. for something to exist it must have time. things age. why? because time is flowing" hey! you cant go to the white house doesnt mean it doesnt exist! my idea of time is that each universe in dimension of time is parallel.since one cannot affect another, there can be no connection to them (the universe).thus, nothing is able to travel across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts