Ray Jones Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 please let your mind just go and have a realistic model of timetraveling designed. does it go only forward? any other issues? or give good reasons that make it impossible to travel in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branik Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 The only way I could think of time travelling would be to somehow travel faster than light. That would reverse the progression of time according to the General Theory of Relativity ( what is that in english? I don't know, yleinen suhteellisuusteoria in finnish). The only problem is, that the same theory inhibits anything traveling with the same or a faster speed than light. One possibility is a sort of a journey through black holes (singularities). Some experts believe that one might enter a parallel universe or time through them, but I doubt it. Maybe we'll know a bit more of the subject when they finally manage to get the Unified Field Theory (again, shoddy english, yhtenäiskenttäteoria) working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Branik General Theory of Relativity Unified Field Theory Correct on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoLuigi... Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 god, how i wish i could go back in the past and change the biggest mistake i ever made (which i'm not gonna discuss), but i don't really think that time travel could ever be made possible, especially travelling backwards in time, because there's no applicable reverse concept to really put there. possibly you could travel forward in time, but i seriously doubt whether it'd be interesting. i think that you could possibly cut through time (like with a wormhole or something), but that's a different topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branik Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 The closest thing I could think of in the means of time travelling would be to somehow travel at almost the speed of light. That way the progression of time slows significantly for the traveller, while it goes on normally for the others. For example 1 hour onboard the extremely fast vessel equals 100 years elsewhere. That way you could "travel" almost instantaneously to the future. But it wouldn't really be time travelling, since you don't actually go anywhere, but spend it really slowly. So yeah, it would only "work" forwards. Working backwards I ruled out earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Cracken Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 going back in time would require me to mess with quantime theory and theoretical physics and stuff that i barely have a grasp on. in other words, i doubt it could happen. Now, going forward in time is highly implausible as well. First, as others have said, you have to accelerate FORWARD to teh SPEED of light, the point relative to everything else, where time stops. This would take INSURMAOUNTABLE and IMPOSSIBLY LARGE quantities of energy, unless you liek swinging around stars and such. that, and teh forces of acceleration would and could make you into a pancake in yourseat. which is BAD. so, i doubt time travel is possible at all, since breaking physical laws of teh universe is bad, and usually the universe can right itself, usually destroying what casued the mistake in teh first place, usually through very violent means. However, i have a theory. Since the speed of light is the point where time stops, maybe if you can accelerate past the speed of light, you could actually make time go in reverse, going backwards. maybe. think of a numberline type deal. i dunno, maybe i'm just and idiot, which is more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branik Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Your theory is correct Cracken, travelling faster than the speed of light would THEORETICALLY reverse the progress of time. Theoretically, because it has, for obvious reasons, never been tested. The problem of the force glueing you to the seat could be solved by accelerating very slowly, but that would take immense amounts of time, fuel, oxygen etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Here's something I heard once. A long time ago, the Government (i think english) found a young boy on the streets of India and found him to be a genius, a child prodegy, somerhinhg completely unexpected. They took him back to england, taught him fluent english in about a month, as well as advanced maths and physics and a load of other stuff. This boy worked with scientists for ages and became a week away from cracking Time travel. In that final week, the young boy died, apparently from lack of food. Believe that or not, I don't have any proof of this, but it's something i heard, debate it while you can. the thing about it though, is that what they were doing was trying to send people back in time, to the past, and one theory suggest that they came close to it, but the thing was, they didn't know how to send them forward in time. Of course this means that they cold send you to yesterday, but you wouldn't be able to get back and would live the rest of your life a day behind everyone else. In my opinion though, travelling back in time would be a pretty bad idea anyway. chaos theory suggests that it would infact be distastrous and probably destroy the universe (this is not being overdone, it would infact do this.) Lets think of the basics os chaos thery first. Originally from the paper An Introduction to Mathematical Chaos Theory and Fractal Geometry Before advancing into the more precocious and advanced areas of chaos, it is necessary to touch on the basic principle that adequately describes chaos theory, the Butterfly Effect. The Butterfly Effect was vaguely understood centuries ago and is still satisfactorily portrayed in folklore: "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; For want of a shoe, the horse was lost; For want of a horse, the rider was lost; For want of a rider, a message was lost; For want of a message the battle was lost; For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost!" Small variations in initial conditions result in huge, dynamic transformations in concluding events. That is to say that there was no nail, and, therefore, the kingdom was lost. So if i were to go back in time and give them a nail, this would obviously result in a huge transformation and the kingdom would be saved. So one minute, an entire kingdom is gone and we live in the world we live in today. if that kingdom was saved, would we still even be here, would everything be the same, would anything be the same? I doubt it considerably, we would probably end up killing some distant ancestor, thus making it so we don't exist. but then if we don't exist, we didn't go back in time and do this, therefore we do exist, therefore we did go back in time... and considering the universe can't cope with this sort of paradox, it would most probably collapse. Peace Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branik Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 The universe ceasing existance would not actually happen, because time travelling is according to modern physics impossible. Even IF it were to happen, the apocalypse wouldn't be something noticeable. The logical errors that Neil pointed out would just simply make the universe disappear instantaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Well, i guess i did make it a little too dramatic, but that was basicaly what i was saying, the universe would simply cease to exist. But yes, it is true that time travel is quite impossible (and i'd never like to see it attempted if someone did find a way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Girl Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 I will sum up the problems of time traveling in a qoute from Invader Zim... (in this episode, Zim plans to send a robot back in time to destroy his "enemy", Dib. His assitant robot, GIR, comments on this...) "Wait...if you send a robot back to destory dib, then he won't be your enemy. Then you wouldn't have to send a robot back and then he will be your enemy(sparks begin to fly from GIR's head).Then you WILL have to send a robot back and (head explodes)":D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr. Cracken Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 That's another problem, with going back into time, is paradox. Example: If you go back in time, and kill your grandfather, he'll never have your father, whom will never have you. what will happen to you? will you simply fade out of existance? or will your atoms, being non-existant, explode so violently that you take the planet with your? or will you continue to exist, being fatherless, and an anomoly in space/time? Dangerous it seems, hard to see, it is. ^_^ This is the grandfather paradox, one of many seen in theorizing in time travel. I myself am a fan of the alternate timeline theory. Say the timeline is a single, large line. anywhere along the line, the time continuum can abruptly move, and chose another path. Therefore, it is theorized that if you go back and change the past, the time whiuch you return to will not be the original main line, however, a split in the road. (Think back to the future part II, the middle/end) More likely than the universe destroying itself, personally, because to destroy the universe take a mass amount of energy. and the universe is somewhat lazy. ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted July 12, 2003 Author Share Posted July 12, 2003 i see time as just the forthcoming of happenings .. and therefore cannot jumped on in any kind. i think one concern of it is that you have to find a way go throug time without having your own time being affected. if it can be reversed by driving faster than light..? i think this is another point .. but the question is what will really happen at lightspeed.. perhabs we will know someday.. maybe time is some part of space.. and by moving through space we kind of glide on time (like a wing on air) perhabs it has something to do with the mass or gravity .. (gravynamics??) .. perhabs it is possible to build some device that enables us to surf on time.. then we could travel through space without lack of time.. would overlightspeed be possible then? and if.. goes time backwards then? will time stand still? or is there something like a time-sonicbarrier? then i must correct myself.. we would be faster then time.. but is time so directly coupled to lightspeed?? .. ..some way to go, eh? (remarks: i'm living too far in the past.. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Originally posted by RayJones perhabs it has something to do with the mass or gravity .. (gravynamics??) Gravynamics... the dynamic study on gravy? Originally posted by RayJones would overlightspeed be possible then? and if.. goes time backwards then? will time stand still? or is there something like a time-sonicbarrier? then i must correct myself.. we would be faster then time.. but is time so directly coupled to lightspeed?? .. You can't exactly be faster than time, time isn't something that takes time. A second takes time, an hour takes time. I suppose you would have to be faster than the present in order to travel in time (although i'm a little hazy on exactly which way, but i think it may be backwards). If you have no idea what I just said then, consider the present as being the smallest unit of time in the world, and that is actually quite plausible considering the beginning of the present is the past, and the end of it is the future, it bridges the two and considering we live in the past (everything we think about and encounter has already happened) and look to the future, the present must be a very small amount of time indeed. So if we were to move faster than this, then we would be travelling in time. the whole idea of time travel beyond the sped of light is ludicrous. It's not true, it would simply be an optical illusion. Because we can't see faster than the speed of light, if we were to move faster than it, when we stopped, we would see something that had already happened, sort of like a delayed response. we would basically live in the past as we would have to live a few seconds (or how ever Mps faster you were than light speed) in teh past, which would seriously mess you up as your body would still be in the present and your mind would be in the past giving ypou a complete delayed reaction to things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted July 12, 2003 Author Share Posted July 12, 2003 Originally posted by RayJones maybe time is some part of space.. and by moving through space we kind of glide on time (like a wing on air) perhabs it has something to do with the mass or gravity .. (gravynamics??) .. perhabs it is possible to build some device that enables us to surf on time.. then we could travel through space without lack of time.. would overlightspeed be possible then? and if.. goes time backwards then? will time stand still? or is there something like a time-sonicbarrier? then i must correct myself.. we would be faster then time.. but is time so directly coupled to lightspeed?? .. it must be like we surf on gravity and a gravity-sonic wall. as gravity influences time. and we wouldnt be faster then time .. but moving with some kind of less time usage or so.. like the effect a plane at supersonicspeed has on a person on the ground which hears it.. plus because time is taken to measure speed time itself cannot have a specific speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Gravity does not effect time in any way. Time is not slower on the moon, if you were to throw a ball on the moon horizontally, it would probably go at a faster speed than on earth because of a lack of air, and therefore less air resistance, and take longer to hit the ground because of low gravity. thus doing the same thing on Jupiter would have the same effect (I'm not sure about air there) but would hit the ground a lot sooner. Time has nothing to do with it though, and gravity does not change our view on time either. Time is a measurement, we canot touch it or surf on it in the same way that we cannot surf on a metre, it would have to be a metre of something and again, would have to be a second of something. Time simply cannot be manipulated in that way, we may be able to in the future, make our minds work faster than they work now, maybe condition our eyes to see more than 24 movements per second and have our brain register it all properly. that would be out manipulation of time, but time itself cannot slow down, speed up, or go backwards, it is a continuing... thing, and therefore cannot be manipulated 9and i am aware i used that word a lot just then, but it's 10:30 at night, I've got to work tomorrow, I'm tired, and I want some cake, so I really can't be bothered to think up a new word) Goodnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyTordesLegend Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 BUT, didn't they do a study where astronauts orbitting the earth(or moon - I can't remember), were found to age 0.000001 % of a second (or something) slower than us down here, thus were actually travelling forwards in time? (Sorry guys, I just don't feel that we discussed this subject enough last time round)!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Originally posted by RoyTordesLegend BUT, didn't they do a study where astronauts orbitting the earth(or moon - I can't remember), were found to age 0.000001 % of a second (or something) slower than us down here, thus were actually travelling forwards in time? Do we not travel forward in time contantly. All your saying is that they aged slower than us. That doesn't mean that for them time went any faster, they probably still perceived everything as normal Even if it was just a very tiny percentage things were still seen in the same way because age has nothing to do with function and those astronauts still have their birthday at the exact same time. Therefore thye didn't travel in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 That's merely a side effect of relativity. The astronauts were travelling at speeds faster than anyone on the surface of the earth could ever do, so time slowed down very slightly for them relative to those of us standing on the planet. If we could sense such changes in relative time movement they would have perceived that time was moving normally for them, but slowly for us. We would have detected the same change in them. Also: if we could measure the capsule that they were in as it was travelling then we would have noticed that it was a tiny bit shorter than when it was resting on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonmhutchins Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Ohhh my head hurts now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Actually, I find Einsteinian Relativity theories to be amazingly easy to understand compared to Quantum Mechanics and string theory. Those are hard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 anything is easy to understand related to any of zooms random anti-theories. (sorry roy, have to think up a proper thought first .. errmm ... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natty Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 My time machine looks like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 I don't believe in time travel. I believe if you go faster than the speed of light.... well, you're going really really fast. I don't know how they came to the conclusion that light had anything to do with time but.... I don't believe in time either. Sure I believe in time time, but not that time is something you can travel through. Time just passes by, things happen, and it's in the past. Meaning it is gone. Time is the present and you can't go anywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyTordesLegend Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Originally posted by Natty My time machine looks like this ....and I drive a car that looks like this:- A VW Scirocco - which looks like a kind of baby DeLorean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.