Alien426 Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 This is my time machine: Now that I've seen Natty's I want one of those, too. Sure mine works fine, but that one looks so much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Pepper Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Has anyone heared of the "M" theory? It says theres 11 dimentions instead of 3. They talk about Membranes and strings its pretty deep stuff. It proves some interesting things. you guys might want to read this http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roytordes'babe Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Originally posted by RoyTordesLegend ....and I drive a car that looks like this:- A VW Scirocco - which looks like a kind of baby DeLorean this car is my second baby but of course my babe roy comes first on the list, isn't that right darling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Originally posted by Kjølen I don't know how they came to the conclusion that light had anything to do with time but.... The fabric of the universe is called "Space-Time." They are one component, inseperable. Every movement you make in space effects time, and vice-versa. Time is the 4th dimension. Every measurement of velocity we have has a time component. A 'light-year' or 'light-second' is a measurement of distance,.. but it is meaningless without the time component, how far light can travel in that amount of time. But more importantly here's how it works with relativity: Every particle in the universe can move freely in 3 spatial dimensions, and forward in one temporal dimension. However, since nothing can move faster than the speed of light, then the combined total of a particle's movement in the 4 dimensions of the universe must total the speed of light. If we use X, Y, and Z to represent the movement in space, T to represent movement in time, and C to represent the speed of light, you can get an algebraic looking formula like this: X+Y+Z+T=C If X, Y, and Z are all zero, then your movement in time has to be taking place at the speed of light (0+0+0+T=C.) However, if you get into a rocket and travel at forward at half the speed of light, (.5C+0+0+T=C) the other half has to come from somewhere... and it will be from the T part of the formula (.5C+0+0+.5C=C). Your speed moving forward in time will slow down to an outside observer who is at rest. This is one of the other reasons why light=speed travel is impossible: If we could design a craft that could achieve light-velocity then T would equal zero, and time would stop completely for anyone inside of it. In theory this allows you to do some fun things with time: If you open a wormhole in space with one end onboard a ship moving away from the other end at close to the speed of light, meaning that time has moved slower for the second end of the wormhole than the stationary one... it is younger. The practical use of this is if you step into the stationary end of the wormhole, you will emerge from the moving end at a time before you entered. Unfortunately, this has the limitation of not going back to a time before the wornhole was created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 I have no idea what you were talking about. Oh well, we only KNOW of nothing that travels faster than light, why, in other places beyond our reach thee could be elements and energies and maybe undiscovered things that would make no sense to modern science. We can't know everything looking from this rock. Anyway, another thing that proves time travel should be impossible, is going back in time and killing yourself, or making yourself not exist. If you don't exist, you wouldn't have killed yourself. So you couldn't go back in time to kill yourself... so you DO exist. So you DO kill yourself. THen that leaves the problem that you didn't exist to kill yourself. Another reason why I believe time travel is impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Originally posted by Natty My time machine looks like this Hey cool, a classic DeLorian Time Traveller. I remember those from like the 80's yeah, I got me a DeLorian 2000, 2 years old... or actually, thirty years old, or... Hang on, when the hell am I? Oh, and string theory is hard to understand because people have a hard time thinking in 11 dimensions (actually, most people have a hard time thinking in 4) And K-jo has a point, time is just a measurement. can anyone here travel faster than a centimeter? Does anyone know how fast a centimeter travels. Does anyone know how to spell centimeter? (is it er, or re at the end?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted June 28, 2004 Author Share Posted June 28, 2004 if time is used to measure speed how can it have a speed itself? it cannot. so if you have two different time systems one is moving fast and one stands still time keeps going on normal within both. looked from one system at the other the own system seems to be not moving and the time in the other time seems to slow down. that's relativity. but seen from a "central point of no motion" with a fast moving "traveler" and a slow moving obsever, then, if someone travels really fast, his time would be going as fast as the time anyone else. but for the observer his time seems to go slower and it is observed so.. if the traveler "stops", his time would be not as "far" as the time of the observer. i think the key to that is gravity. analoque to electric fields of electrons mass has a gravity field. moved electric fields cause magnetic fields. and moved gavity fields are causing "deformation" of space (space-time). that influences time or it's speed for an "outside" observer. the time within the deformed space is running normal. and if time is the "4th dimension", then is must be possible to "travel" within this "4th axis" of our universes dimensions. if it is a dimension in the classical way. but is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by RayJones i think the key to that is gravity. analoque to electric fields of electrons mass has a gravity field. moved electric fields cause magnetic fields. and moved gavity fields are causing "deformation" of space (space-time). that influences time or it's speed for an "outside" observer. the time within the deformed space is running normal. If that were true then wouldn't we be encountering strange gravity fields from the billions of light-speed cosmic particles that shower down upon us every second of every day. Although they are tiny, they do have some mass, and if gravity and speed are inter-related, then there should be detectable gravity fields. Time does have a speed. Even if we are standing still in space we are still moving forward at a measurable rate,.. in time. Just because we cannot choose in what direction or at what rate we move through this dimension doesn't make it any less important. Time moves exactly the same for all of us because we are all moving around together, living at the bottom of the same gravity well. That might not be able to be said if half the folks that posted to this board were merely drifting in interstellar space. I guess it is considered a dimension because if I were to give you instructions for being at a meeting I would have to give you 4 pieces of information to truly make it complete. If I said to "Meet me at the building at the corner of Sixth Avenue..." that doesn't tell you enough. Sixth Ave. runs the entire length of the city. It has a lot of corners. "... and Liberty Street..." Closer,.. but that building has 20 floors. "... on the 11th floor...", Pretty good, but not entirely complete, is it? If I left it at that then you would no doubt ask me for the 4th piece of vital information to make this useable: "When?" ("Friday at 2:30PM.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by edlib If that were true then wouldn't we be encountering strange gravity fields from the billions of light-speed cosmic particles that shower down upon us every second of every day. Although they are tiny, they do have some mass, and if gravity and speed are inter-related, then there should be detectable gravity fields. Time does have a speed. Even if we are standing still in space we are still moving forward at a measurable rate,.. in time. Just because we cannot choose in what direction or at what rate we move through this dimension doesn't make it any less important. Time moves exactly the same for all of us because we are all moving around together, living at the bottom of the same gravity well. That might not be able to be said if half the folks that posted to this board were merely drifting in interstellar space. I guess it is considered a dimension because if I were to give you instructions for being at a meeting I would have to give you 4 pieces of information to truly make it complete. If I said to "Meet me at the building at the corner of Sixth Avenue..." that doesn't tell you enough. Sixth Ave. runs the entire length of the city. It has a lot of corners. "... and Liberty Street..." Closer,.. but that building has 20 floors. "... on the 11th floor...", Pretty good, but not entirely complete, is it? If I left it at that then you would no doubt ask me for the 4th piece of vital information to make this useable: "When?" ("Friday at 2:30PM.") Okay, first of all, another reason why I think Star Trek is useless. And Time can't have a measurement, it is a measurement. Legnth can't have a measurement for the same reason. If it did have a mearurement, it would have to be in respect to seconds and minutes. For that to happen we would need to find out the exact time it takes for the past to merge into the future. this is instantaneous, no time is taken, time is nothing, and yet time is everything, which just goers to show how nothing is everything. 0=infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by edlib If that were true then wouldn't we be encountering strange gravity fields from the billions of light-speed cosmic particles that shower down upon us every second of every day. Although they are tiny, they do have some mass, and if gravity and speed are inter-related, then there should be detectable gravity fields. Time does have a speed. Even if we are standing still in space we are still moving forward at a measurable rate,.. in time. Just because we cannot choose in what direction or at what rate we move through this dimension doesn't make it any less important. Time moves exactly the same for all of us because we are all moving around together, living at the bottom of the same gravity well. That might not be able to be said if half the folks that posted to this board were merely drifting in interstellar space. I guess it is considered a dimension because if I were to give you instructions for being at a meeting I would have to give you 4 pieces of information to truly make it complete. If I said to "Meet me at the building at the corner of Sixth Avenue..." that doesn't tell you enough. Sixth Ave. runs the entire length of the city. It has a lot of corners. "... and Liberty Street..." Closer,.. but that building has 20 floors. "... on the 11th floor...", Pretty good, but not entirely complete, is it? If I left it at that then you would no doubt ask me for the 4th piece of vital information to make this useable: "When?" ("Friday at 2:30PM.") Okay, first of all, another reason why I think Star Trek is useless. But iot is notable to add that you do havea very good point. in that meeting, you specified all four dimensions for it to work, Sixth avenue, the x axis, Liberty street, the z axis, and the 11th floor, the y axis. and then the time itself, the fourth dimension. Of course this is all true if you are to agree on what the three axis are meant to look like as appose to some peoples twisted thinking that the z axis should be going up, which just confuses a lot of people. And Time can't have a measurement, it is a measurement. Legnth can't have a measurement for the same reason. If it did have a mearurement, it would have to be in respect to seconds and minutes. For that to happen we would need to find out the exact time it takes for the past to merge into the future. this is instantaneous, no time is taken, time is nothing, and yet time is everything, which just goers to show how nothing is everything. 0=infinity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JofaGuht Posted June 29, 2004 Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by RayJones 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. Time does not exist. It is a human concept. Therefore it is impossible to manipulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted June 29, 2004 Author Share Posted June 29, 2004 Originally posted by edlib If that were true then wouldn't we be encountering strange gravity fields from the billions of light-speed cosmic particles that shower down upon us every second of every day. Although they are tiny, they do have some mass, and if gravity and speed are inter-related, then there should be detectable gravity fields. maybe the gravity fields are not that strong. also i dont know how much space is deformed by gravity. quantum theory may kick in too if we talk about small (micro-)cosmic particles. and like joshi i see a valid point in what you've said. but i hav to agree with joshi that time is only measurement. i dont think it has a speed in the classic sense. jofa: time is not a human concept. it was there before us. but unlike joshi i would say it belongs to everything. but on the other hand it does not (quanta(??) seem to be able to correlate without time (not in NO time)) so it belongs only to nearly everything and shows that infinity is not infinite. ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by RayJones jofa: time is not a human concept. it was there before us. but unlike joshi i would say it belongs to everything. but on the other hand it does not (quanta(??) seem to be able to correlate without time (not in NO time)) so it belongs only to nearly everything and shows that infinity is not infinite. ha! Either at some point you made a mistake in this paragraph (spelling or otherwise) which made it say something other to what you meant, or I just don't get it, but either way, not once did I say time belongs to nothing. Being a measurement, and having everything existing in this universe, I can't see anyting that isn't in some way moving through time, therefore time must be infinate. If theory states that teh end of the universe will come and then there will be nothing, will time just stop? For there to be time, there must be matter, so if there is no matter, there is no concept of time. But, if then, matter was to come into being, how long after the universe was destroyed does this happen, there must be a time, unless it is instantaneous, and therefore time must be infinate. And yet the time between the past and the future is nothing of anything, anf therefore infinity is nothing. ha hah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamNMax Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 This time machine worked for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Doubt it, the flux capacitor's binary data is way off and it doesn't have enough mega fluxes to open a time rip. You really need a PS2 for it to work properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort-Hog Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Travelling into the past is not possible simply because of the 'mother paradox'. That is, if you travelled back in time and killed your mother, what would happen? She wouldn't be alive, so wouldn't give birth to you, so you wouldn't be alive, so you couldn't time travel and kill her. So she'd be alive. She'd give birth to you and you'd time travel and kill her. So she wouldn't be alive, so wouldn't give birth to you, so you wouldn't be alive, so you couldn't time travel and kill her. So she'd be alive. ad infinitum. Time travelling into the future is possible. Well, not exactly. Einsteinian physics states that very massive objects bend spacetime. If you are near to a very large object then time slows down. In fact, time slows down when you walk past your cat, but it is such a small amount that you won't notice it. But if you travelled near to a very large planet or star, what would seem to you to be a few weeks might be a few hundred years on Earth. Though the gravitational pull of such an object would probably be so strong that you'd either be ripped apart, or be sent crashing into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I know, I shouldn't bump, but dave Grossman sent a very appropriate poem for this discussion (and plus, I never saw the above post). The poem goes as thus; Time Dilation Apparently, racing with photons of light Keeps you young and fresh and perplexed The faster you go the more everything slows It's one of those baffling Einstein effects And if you exceed the critical speed Time reflects back like a mirror So a word to the wise: watch how quickly you drive Lest you ega yourself back to zero Meh, anyway. Originally posted by Mort-Hog Travelling into the past is not possible simply because of the 'mother paradox'. That is, if you travelled back in time and killed your mother, what would happen? She wouldn't be alive, so wouldn't give birth to you, so you wouldn't be alive, so you couldn't time travel and kill her. So she'd be alive. She'd give birth to you and you'd time travel and kill her. So she wouldn't be alive, so wouldn't give birth to you, so you wouldn't be alive, so you couldn't time travel and kill her. So she'd be alive. ad infinitum. Time travelling into the future is possible. Well, not exactly. Einsteinian physics states that very massive objects bend spacetime. If you are near to a very large object then time slows down. In fact, time slows down when you walk past your cat, but it is such a small amount that you won't notice it. But if you travelled near to a very large planet or star, what would seem to you to be a few weeks might be a few hundred years on Earth. Though the gravitational pull of such an object would probably be so strong that you'd either be ripped apart, or be sent crashing into it. The Grandfather paradox, something I've always thought about. The horseman mounted the horse, and sent word to the king about an impending battle which was easily avoided because of such news. what if you went back in time and accidentally dropped a stick on the road, casing the horse to throw a shoe, causing the messenger to be late, thus the kingdom is destroyed and you're ancestor dead, thus you're dead, thus the gradfather paradox. One explanation would be that history finds a way. What if your ancestor got out in time. What if the man who was to kill your grandfathrer was killed in WW2. say you went back in time and killed hitler before the war? History finds a way, Hitler isbn't enough anyway, another dictator would be along and probably make war a lot sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort-Hog Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Your thing is a totally over-complicated version of my thing. What if you go back in time and you kill your mother? No horseman, no stick, no WW2, just you, a knife, and your bitch of a mother. How is 'history going to find a way' out of that one? This seems to follow the assumption that history "knows" you you have to be born and will bend and fiddle events just to make that true. That doesn't make any sense. It requires 'God' or somesuch outside influence, and this utterly negates it as a scientific theory. Quantum physics does state that the future can affect the past. If you think about this for a while, this will totally baffle you. This is how quantum physics explains the Big Bang: The Big Bang created the Universe, and the Universe created the Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scabb Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Originally posted by Joshi what if you went back in time and accidentally dropped a stick on the road, casing the horse to throw a shoe, causing the messenger to be late, thus the kingdom is destroyed and you're ancestor dead, thus you're dead, thus the gradfather paradox. That's actually more often used to explain chaos theory (or 'The Butterfly Effect'), which is more to do with uncertainty and unpredictability than time travel. Edited to add the link, which has Joshi's little 'thing' in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Jones Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 chaos theory used within our universe is "hardwired" to time. and, if you go back in time or not, you can always change the future. (how lame ) another theory: if your mother is born at (A) and she gives birth to you at (B) and you go back in time to (A) the timeline will NEVER arrive at (B) exactly "again". it (the travellers timeline) will, from the moment of your arrival at (A), runs along a different path. i'd go deeper into that, but i have no time (currently) .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort-Hog Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Hmmm. The multiple timelines thing, like in BTTF 2. That could make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 Originally posted by Mort-Hog Your thing is a totally over-complicated version of my thing. What if you go back in time and you kill your mother? No horseman, no stick, no WW2, just you, a knife, and your bitch of a mother. How is 'history going to find a way' out of that one? This seems to follow the assumption that history "knows" you you have to be born and will bend and fiddle events just to make that true. That doesn't make any sense. It requires 'God' or somesuch outside influence, and this utterly negates it as a scientific theory. Quantum physics does state that the future can affect the past. If you think about this for a while, this will totally baffle you. This is how quantum physics explains the Big Bang: The Big Bang created the Universe, and the Universe created the Big Bang. Yeah, I know, common logic says that my theory (one I don't really believe in, it's just something I picked up somewhere) is a load of crap. Of course, the whole me killing my mother with a knife thing is nicely, although crudely solved with a certain Futurama episode (I won't go into detains, if you haven't seen it you can still understand) but basically, what if you did this, and then your father slept with a sister or cousin or someone who by some mirical shared the same genetic coding (and you know it's possible, even if only a slim possibility) thus creating you. I am again, willing to state that this whole theory is most probably a whole load of bull ****, but it's an interesting think, none the less. I mean, yes, it does requitre history, which is actually nothnig more than a description, to know what is meant to happen and it also relies on the fact that it will only fix things for the future you came from to work, but someone is still dead when they once weren't. But it seems to be an overly easy concept to grasp that changing the past will change the future, the future has already happened, how can it be changed? there are ways of thinking around this, but people seem to take it for granted too much. I dunno. And Yes scabb, it is largely used to explain chaos theory and what happens with butterflies (and no, I never saw "The Butterfly Effect", I heard it was pretty bad, but I'll still watch it later for my own opinion, on DVD or something), something I am also very interested in, if only for the implications that can arise when properly thought about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mort-Hog Posted July 20, 2004 Share Posted July 20, 2004 The butterfly effect has nothing to do with butterflies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scabb Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Nor was I referring to the recent film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 Originally posted by Mort-Hog The butterfly effect has nothing to do with butterflies. I know, it's to do with the shape that the graph takes when a certain equation related to the chaos theory is plotted on a 3 dimentional axis. But then there's also that old saying "How come, when a butterfly beats it's wings in Africa, it rains in New York?" (my locations are probably wrong there) which is used to descibe the basic form of chaos theory which is that we cannot really define the start of an event, like rain. It may be due to humidity, or the position of the moon or whatever, but whist we can define these things, we can never be 100% sure of something like that, which is really the basis of chaos theory. Originally posted by scabb Nor was I referring to the recent film. I didn't think you would, but you know, just incase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.