|
Author
|
Topic: Time travel
|
Ognob
Farting Nudist
Member # 1596
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 12:14 AM
How does time work? here are some of my ideas
1. We and our environment are moving through time. there is one universe. if we went back in time there would be nothingness
2. Time is on a track and there is a copy of everything made every second. One universe or multiverse. If we went back in time, we would be displacing ourself from that point and replacing ourself back on another point on the timeline. We would see another copy of ourselves until ourself stepped into the timemachine and went back in time. That self would see itself and the other self. And there would be infinite selfs in that period.
Or, if it is a multiverse, there would be two of us and ourself would possibly never step into the machine(made a different choice). But if the choice was repeated eventually all universes from that point would be populated with copies of self.
3. Multiverse and every moment some number of other universes are stemmed from them.
4. Multiverses at different periods of time because the "timeline" does not develop at the same rate as others. Undistinguishable to the people and things in the multiverses. Things just keep continuing, a book that is unfinished but every word is being read at once.
Also if i could go back in time i would find the puddle of amebas that we evolved from and pee in it
[ 02-05-2003, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Ognob ]
Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dr.steelix
Farting Nudist
Member # 2734
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 01:10 AM
What is a multiverse.
- - - - -
i am sorry
From: Israel | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 02:54 AM
It's about 2:55 AM EST right now.
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
kristraj
Farting Nudist
Member # 1360
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 04:52 AM
my head hurts, think about this
say u had you leg amputated because of an accident, imagine u went back in time and stopped the accident, now i was thinking, once u fix this accident then u would have no reason to go back in time so then you can fix the leg but then u go back and fix it so wtf happens?
two solution IMO: time rips, end or universe and life,
time travel aint possible
- - - - -
trying is always the first step towards failure
From: where ever there's a topless blonde | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 06:32 AM
Yes, as kristaj posted, time travel is impossible for the fact that once you go back in time to fix something, you would have no reason to go back anymore, and thus would stick yourself into an infinite loop. I suppose if you went back in time past when you were born and made sure you weren't seen, only going as a spectator it *could* work.
But what about stopping time? Would it be possible to exist when the all forces that you exert would be eqaul to x/0? The only thing I've come up with it having it so that you'd create something like a telepathic time-shield around you that allowed any atoms within a 1 atom radius of your body to move at the rate of... 1 second per, err, second. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Just another little something to think about from the minds here at Ice Impossiblities Incorporated.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jedi_DOJ
Farting Nudist
Member # 844
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 12:08 PM
Time is a "human" concept. Like all measurement, it's innately flawed because it's based on "human" perception and the "human" perception of measurement. Problem is we have no way right now to verify if time is fluid, linear or anything of the like. Going back and forth in time is a linear concept of time. If we adjust our concept of time in a fluid state, "time travel" is possible. Nature/Universe is not dependent on time; our concept of time is based on our approximation of what we measured in nature. Think of running in no wind vs running in wind vs running in water vs running in space vs running in .5 gravity. Think of time like a fluid... better yet, try to think of time in a non-linear sense. Is time us "running" or is time the "medium" in which we run in?
Until we can grasp time without our "constraints" on how we perceive time, I believe we are kind of stuck.
Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-05-2003 01:40 PM
Einstein, I think, proved that time isn't constant. That if you traveled at the speed of light time would go slower for you. That technically is traveling through time at a different rate than everyone else.
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 01:46 PM
Einstein, I think, proved that time isn't constant.
Postulated. Other people "proved" it.
That if you traveled at the speed of light time would go slower for you.
You can't travel at the speed of light. As you get faster, the rest of the world seems to slow down more at any speed; it's just too miniscule to care about at anything less than quite a few thousand miles a second.
Why do we need all these crazy "multiverse" ideas? Nobody gets all worked up about things being different across space...
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 02:04 PM
IceHawk78: Yes, as kristaj posted, time travel is impossible for the fact that once you go back in time to fix something, you would have no reason to go back anymore, and thus would stick yourself into an infinite loop.
In any case, I don't think this would create a "loop", but I get your point.
However, since no one really knows how time works, there's no reason to expect that changing something in the future would alter the present. Time might not "care" how you got there.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boodabonzi
like a virgin
Member # 2958
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 02:21 PM
Hey, if time slows when you're at the speed of light surely all E-M waves should exist in a different time. Or is it the fact that they are transferring only energy not matter the reason they are exempt? There must be a reason as otherwise my physics a-level is bollocks.
- - - - -
OK, I know I'm probably not the nicest Pokemon Trainer when it comes to giving advice, and if I get flamed on this, it is probably well deserved. So here goes...
From: Hitchin - biggest little shanty town in all of England | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
undone-backwards
Farting Nudist
Member # 197
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 02:28 PM
There must be a reason as otherwise my physics a-level is bollocks.
A-level physics is bollocks. One teahcer tells me light has a mass, as everything must have a mass, no matter how minute. The other tells me light doesn't have a mass because it is "pure" energy.
time travel aint possible
Power up the Delorean to 88mph then tell me that.
[ 02-05-2003, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: undone-backwards ]
From: under your bed... | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boodabonzi
like a virgin
Member # 2958
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 02:43 PM
Light has no mass. An electron has a mass, maybe that teacher was talking about a photon which is an electron which behaves like light or something because it is formed when blue or higher frequency EM-wave hits metal or something, there's a formula as well, it gives a different answer every time I try it. In conclusion, yes, a-level Electrons and Photons is bollocks, Forces and Motion is easy enough though.
- - - - -
OK, I know I'm probably not the nicest Pokemon Trainer when it comes to giving advice, and if I get flamed on this, it is probably well deserved. So here goes...
From: Hitchin - biggest little shanty town in all of England | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-05-2003 03:27 PM
KE = hf - W
F = frequency, h = Planck’s constant, W is the work function, KE = kinetic energy.
You put in the frequency of light, and every thing else to find its KE max.
Since KE = (1/2)m(v squared) you can easily find the mass (m) of light if you know it's speed (v).
Light does have a mass.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ognob
Farting Nudist
Member # 1596
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 07:17 PM
not funny when you do it ok
Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 08:02 PM
Light has no rest mass. If it were to hold perfectly still, it would have no mass at all. It would also have no energy. It may, in fact, not even exist: even if it did, it could not interact with anything (nor could anything known generate zero energy light), so the effect is the same. More energetic light has more mass, so that's why gravitational lensing exists: if a photon of lazy red light is next to a photon of perfect, active, violet light, and they both go near a star, the red light will be bent less because it "weighs" less.
This amounts to what ceoalex### said.
I still have a page full of hate for ceoalex###, but that's for a different thread.
Of course, we could all be wrong:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/4-6/Str-lens.pdf
- - - - -
Subject: Ninja and Opensource
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 10:08 PM
The fuck? Photons != electrons. Photons cause electrons to jump to higher energy levels and reemit light, but they are not one and the same. Different spins, they react to different forces, etc.
Also, there is a third possibility most of you seem to be ignoring: perhaps you can go back in time, and the way things are today is due to the effects of time travelers in the future. For instance, perhaps the dinosaur died out because someone figured out how to send a nuke into the past: were this the case, we'd find that it would happen and we'd be unable to stop it if we tried. (I know nukes didn't kill the dinosaurs, so don't mention it.)
Lastly, isn't there some kind of postulate that says even if you could make a time machine, you wouldn't be able to go back in time to before its creation? Or is that just based on the same paradox?
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
VaporeonsHaze
Farting Nudist
Member # 252
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 10:23 PM
Time is a human made measure of decay.
Time would have to follow laws of motion.. at the apex of going from positive to negative would be a vertical asymptote (spelling).. which would be a stop of all motion = absolute zero, and everything would fall appart from the lack of bonds and whatnot.
- - - - -
shut the fuck up
From: MI | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 10:37 PM
MMM: Lastly, isn't there some kind of postulate that says even if you could make a time machine, you wouldn't be able to go back in time to before its creation?
That one sounds like comic book logic. Or Quantum Leap or something.
Good point about the whole "maybe we're in an altered past already" thing. If we were in such a place, we wouldn't know about it unless someone told us...and we wouldn't believe him anyway.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 11:14 PM
Time is a human made measure of decay.
As human made as space...?
Time would have to follow laws of motion... etc etc.
Even though I don't necessarily agree with your assumption: Sure, but you assume velocity through time is continuous, which is iffy given that we know a lot of other microlevel things aren't. What if it could be instantly flipped to negative?
And for the confused: Photons are light, and vice versa.
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ognob
Farting Nudist
Member # 1596
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 11:22 PM
yay i did it
oops oh nos
Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
VaporeonsHaze
Farting Nudist
Member # 252
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-05-2003 11:22 PM
As human made as space..?
lol I dont understand the question
and what if it can instantly flip to negative..
That would still leave a vertical wouldnt it?.. is there really anything that can do anything instantly? I dunno, thoes are just my thoery's
- - - - -
shut the fuck up
From: MI | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-06-2003 06:48 AM
Vertical time?
We have to go on the assumptions that we have of time, as we are humans and thus have to abide by the human logic of time. Go get a cat, maybe they can travel in vertical time.
As for flipping time immediately to the negative, wouldn't it have an assload of momentum to just flip backwards? I know we didn't go into lots of the theoretical stuffs in calculus, but I do remember that it said all things with mass had momentum. Wait, does time have momentum, or is it a measure of momentum?
... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Donald
Bob the Builder
Member # 1551
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-06-2003 08:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by IceHawk78:
Go get a cat, maybe they can travel in vertical time.
Only if you strap toast to their back, butter side up, and then drop them.
[ 02-06-2003, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Donald ]
From: In your girl's panties | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-06-2003 04:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by IceHawk78:
Yes, as kristaj posted, time travel is impossible for the fact that once you go back in time to fix something, you would have no reason to go back anymore, and thus would stick yourself into an infinite loop. I suppose if you went back in time past when you were born and made sure you weren't seen, only going as a spectator it *could* work.
Here's how you get around this...
Let's say that when you were 15 you were in a terrible accident and lost both your legs.
Later in life you discover how to time travel. Let's say you're 23 now and you can go back in time. Go back to right before you were in the accident.
Now there's 2 yous running around in the past. The young you and the older you. You go find yourself and prevent the accident.
Now here is the key part. You must tell the younger you (the one who you just saved from the accident) that when HE is 23 that HE must come back to the past and save himself even though in his timeline he was never hurt in the first place...
So now the young you grows up, never lost his legs, and when he is older, he time travels back to the past again to make up for the fact that someone has to send the original message to yourself to stop the accident in the first place...
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-06-2003 04:50 PM
also what is it?
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
IceHawk78
NOBODY IMPORTANT
Member # 1699
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-06-2003 11:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MK:
quote:
Originally posted by IceHawk78:
Yes, as kristaj posted, time travel is impossible for the fact that once you go back in time to fix something, you would have no reason to go back anymore, and thus would stick yourself into an infinite loop. I suppose if you went back in time past when you were born and made sure you weren't seen, only going as a spectator it *could* work.
Here's how you get around this...
Let's say that when you were 15 you were in a terrible accident and lost both your legs.
Later in life you discover how to time travel. Let's say you're 23 now and you can go back in time. Go back to right before you were in the accident.
Now there's 2 yous running around in the past. The young you and the older you. You go find yourself and prevent the accident.
Now here is the key part. You must tell the younger you (the one who you just saved from the accident) that when HE is 23 that HE must come back to the past and save himself even though in his timeline he was never hurt in the first place...
So now the young you grows up, never lost his legs, and when he is older, he time travels back to the past again to make up for the fact that someone has to send the original message to yourself to stop the accident in the first place...
Yes, but wouldn't you have already known that you were told to go back in the past and fix your legs, and thus you wouldn't have ever lost them, and, again, you would have no reason to ever go back in the first place.
Plus, would the guy who went back have to relive
all those years again, as well as having to deal with an instantly altered past.
Changing history is a bad idea. Period. Then again, you could always go back into the past and make it so that the first humans died out, and thus never existed. That's what the first human to go back in time should do.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kristraj
Farting Nudist
Member # 1360
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-07-2003 05:21 AM
i was just thinking, i was reading all your comments and only half of it made sense from my limited knowledge but we havent talked about parallel universes, if there was parallel universes then with my problem time travel could be possible but it wouldnt affect u directly
- - - - -
trying is always the first step towards failure
From: where ever there's a topless blonde | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tghost
Farting Nudist
Member # 1418
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-07-2003 05:31 AM
I think the last time we did this, way back when, the argument on Parallel Universes was if you could travel between 'em, we'd have people and stuff popping out of thin air all over the place (you know, that whole infinite parallel universes thing) so it becomes a moot point.
Basically, you prove it can't be done by the fact it doesn't happen every nanosecond.
[ 02-07-2003, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: Tghost ]
- - - - -
My brain went on vacation and left my pancreas in charge
From: Auckland, New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-07-2003 01:35 PM
Maybe the chances of landing on earth out of the whole universe are very slim?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tghost
Farting Nudist
Member # 1418
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-07-2003 06:27 PM
If there are parallel universes, the idea is that there's an infinite amount of them.
So, let's take any random percentage as the chance of landing on Earth. How about, oh, the odds of being struck by lightning while being sworn in as a the President of the Untied States on your 16th Birthday and then subsquently surviving, but dying in Hospital from a Nurse being jealous of your success and injecting you with something that would kill you. Basically, really really tiny. Multiply that by infinity.
Then, use some fancy shmacncy maths to prove that any number times infinity - is still infinity.
- - - - -
My brain went on vacation and left my pancreas in charge
From: Auckland, New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HolyOmeganAngel
Farting Nudist
Member # 2565
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-08-2003 06:09 PM
i thought parallel universes and multiverses split from existing worlds yet formed back togethor when the differences were two small and remained seperate when they were to large?
Such as the guy who traveled back to save his legs. I take it as he created two seperate universes in which the differences are to great to form togethor once again. The guy still has no legs but his past self lives in a universe in which he has legs....
my question is though if he formed two parallel worlds and choose to go back to his regular time where he's supposed to be 23 how would he choose which world to go to? if time contained both parallel worlds how would his time machine know which one to go back to?
- - - - -
...
From: Universe | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-08-2003 11:40 PM
You can argue the infinite theory with time.
Since time is infinite, if somewhere along the line someone were to invent a time machine then we would have people popping up every second.
There could be a limit to time travel though.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-09-2003 12:35 PM
Angel: i thought parallel universes and multiverses split from existing worlds yet formed back togethor when the differences were two small and remained seperate when they were to large?
alex: Since time is infinite
Says who?
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-09-2003 12:53 PM
How can it not be?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-09-2003 01:26 PM
By ending...
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-09-2003 01:40 PM
*Using K's method*
That is the stupidest thing you have said so far.
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-09-2003 01:58 PM
This whole "parallel universes" idea reeks of pseudoscience. I don't doubt that there are any, but really, how the fuck can anyone theorize about them when we barely have an adequate understanding of our own universe?
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-10-2003 12:45 PM
This whole "parallel universes" idea reeks of pseudoscience.
Yep.
*Using K's method*
That is the stupidest thing you have said so far.
You can only use that when you're right.
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-10-2003 12:55 PM
You should check out The End Of Time in the physics department of a store near you.
- - - - -
Subject: Ninja and Opensource
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 02-10-2003 03:10 PM
So when time ends, what is after that?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-10-2003 06:45 PM
Gaspar. Duh.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-10-2003 06:52 PM
He's not refering to the "end of time" as in everything stops: he's referring to the end of time as a concept that is indefinable. One of his ideas is that the universe is basically a single object with many different states, and our perception gives that an "arrow of time"- though time does not actually exist, and the universe is a static object.
The guy isn't mainstream, but he's not a kook either. Another reason I recommend it is that he reviews the other explanations for time (not necessarily to argue with them, either), like the common sensical statement that we perceive time running in the direction we do because that's the way chemical reactions run (increasing entropy).
It's a good book to at least look at.
- - - - -
Subject: Ninja and Opensource
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-10-2003 08:23 PM
So when time ends, what is after that?
If I start off walking in a straight line, what happens after I get to the end of the earth?
IDIOT DISCLAIMER: This does not mean I think time is circular. It does mean that, like the "space" part of spacetime, it isn't necessarily linear.
IDIOT DISCLAIMER 2: Nonlinearity does not necessarily mean a curve twists upon itself and intersects in all sorts of pseudoscientific ways. It does mean that, like a parabola, it can be curved while still retaining some of the aspects of linearity.
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
kikered
Farting Nudist
Member # 830
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-11-2003 09:11 AM
And I quote from my Physics teacher:
"We're constantly time-travelling. We can easily go to the future (one second at a time), but we can't go back."
Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fluorine
SMELLY BUTT
Member # 2904
Member Rated:
|
posted 02-11-2003 09:47 AM
Travelling through time is the equivalent of making stuff appear from nowhere. Travel through time until one minute ago, then wait one minute. At that moment, you'll have two instances of yourself. Where did the second come from? Well, maybe travelling into past implies that something travels into the future to compensate. Then time travelling would be the ultimate method to get rich, by duplicating money and goods.
But when you think of it, the "parallel universe" option is the most logical. At quantic levels, all particles have essentially random movements. It's logical to think that at every moment, all possibilities happen simultaneously, splitting the universe in an insanely huge number of parallel universes. And when you "go back in time", you'd probably just go in another parallel universe, if that's even possible.
Another option is that when you go back into time, the entire world from the moment you go back to to the "present", gets irremediately erased. It's like when you rewind a tape to record stuff instead of what's already there, except that you'd keep one element from the end of the tape and place it in another spot. Basically, you could kill your parents before you were born, but it would have absolutely no influence. See it like this: you've been born, but the part where the universe "recorded" the event just got erased. It doesn't mean it never existed, it just means that, well, it doesn't exist anymore. Freaky, huh?
Keep in mind that it's just some ideas that are nothing more than speculation, and that the u goes before the o *hides*
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic