u do NOT want to stop WW2 from happening, watch timecop in berlin, and you'll know why.
That which we forget we are doomed to repeat.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
u do NOT want to stop WW2 from happening, watch timecop in berlin, and you'll know why.
To address the general idea of time travel, my problem is not a technological one but a logical paradox. If you travel back in time, then you in theory change the future. Once the point in the future then arrived when you travelled back in time, there is no longer a need to go back in time to change what you just changed. As there is no need to travel back in time, you don't travel back in time. Since the voyage never occurs, the change in the past never happens either and the whole thing is null. There are MANY other logical paradoxes that present themselves when considering time travel.
That being said, I think as close as we'll get is travelling at the speed of light, which is the exact opposite of time travel. In a very real sense, we are all travelling through time. Every second is a voyage so to speak. When you are at the speed of light, not only are you infinite in mass and your length parallel to the direction of travel approaches 0, but time stops relative to the universe you are travelling in. Put in another way, if one twin remains on Earth, and another travels at the speed of light for 10 earth years, once the speedy twin is once again at rest, he will not have aged while the twin who was Earthbound will find himself with a decade more experience.
Even if it were possible, the continuum, man! Such consequences as of preventing WWII would not only prevent the existence of thousands today, but also have a massive effect on the population that was not killed...AND MORE!
interesting thoughts...BigmacK192 wrote:
The vastness of time is not meant for the human soul to explore, its merely a means of transportation from one form to the next.
I think time & space wouldn't allow for the distortions, but that would be assuming we only have 4 dimensions, if we have 9 to 11 dimensions like some string theory's, it might be possible to jump to other reality's, we know so little still though it is impossible to speculate.
Once we discover a clean & unlimited power source we might be able to start thinking about it.
Going into the future is plausible, but not with our current technology. You just need to go really fast. Search Time Dilalation, or special relativity for detailed explanantions. Going into the past seems pretty much impossible with the science we have now.
Last edited by joemah (2006-07-15 22:07:06)
actually, I find travelling into the future the least plausible from a logical standpoint. I suppose the challending POV to this would be an overwhelming faith in destiny. But as we have free will and change our mind every second, I would think the future would just be a changing pimordial ooze of possibilities.joemah wrote:
Going into the future is plausible, but not with our current technology. You just need to go really fast. Search Time Dilalation, or special relativity for detailed explanantions. Going into the past seems pretty much impossible with the science we have now.
As for travel to the past, I think Marconius posed the most obvious arguement.
my time machine wakes me up every morning.
quick answer: NOMajor Payne wrote:
im not sure if you can debate about this or s iriously talk about this but if we disigne a timemachine in the future and go back to prefent by example WWII it isny going to work cuz we all rember the ww and it already happend so it cant be changed right?? there are also some poeple who said they were from the future like john titor (or something) he said there will die like 7 bilion people in about 5 years becuase of a world desaster but now we know we can try to prefent that but it doesnt work becuse it already happend to john. so my question is : is it possible to change the timeline
sorry for my english im not very good in it
you can 'go into the future' by approaching light speed, you will approach infinite mass and energy, time around you slows down, and you appear smaller and stretched (provided a camera can capture you) (this is of course impossible) E=mc2 says that mass and energy are proportional. It also says that at light speed the other laws of physics fail
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-16 08:54:15)
theclocks and watches with the astronauts that orbit space are always off when they finally return to earth
i blame them for falling too fastGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
theclocks and watches with the astronauts that orbit space are always off when they finally return to earth
You can't go back in time to change anything, then you wouldn't have gone in the first place, if you go back in time for the sake of couriosity, then you can change whatever you want I guess.
If it were ever invented in the future ( a time machine) then every point in time after that time would have use of time travel technology, thus, at that point of invention every point in time will have been travelled to by someone in a time machine, and if it were ever designed as a weapon, then from that point that weapon will have always existed, since at some point after that point someone will use it (or have used it) in any point in time. Lol.
Since such a weapon does not exist, then it never will exist, since it is within our nature to use weapons
Since such a weapon does not exist, then it never will exist, since it is within our nature to use weapons
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-16 09:15:35)
my skull hurts from reading this..
Time Travel is bad. mmmkay
Time travel is impossible for one simple reason, nobody has invented the Flux Capacitor yet.
Time Travel is bad. mmmkay
Time travel is impossible for one simple reason, nobody has invented the Flux Capacitor yet.
That's the Twin Paradox and in fact doesn't work. Einstein's Theory of Relativity only works in a non-accelerating frame of reference. True, that while the spacefaring twin is in his spaceship, he will age, from the Earth twin's perspective, slower. However, to return to Earth to verify that he has aged less, the space faring twin must turn back, so must decelerate. Once this happens, everything goes back to normal and they will actually be of the same age once reunited.puckmercury wrote:
Put in another way, if one twin remains on Earth, and another travels at the speed of light for 10 earth years, once the speedy twin is once again at rest, he will not have aged while the twin who was Earthbound will find himself with a decade more experience.
Another thing, if you ever manage to travel faster than the speed of light, and you look back, you will actually see yourself travelling backwards and leaving the destination you've just reached. So you will actually be travelling back in time from a little bit in the future.
This thread's really interesting.
Didn't read everything here (sorry),
but if the timeline changes, some of us never would be born (or bored ?)
but if the timeline changes, some of us never would be born (or bored ?)
Go back, post myself (paradox if you meet yourself) some winning lottery numbers... come back to the future a multi millionnaire...acidkiller187 wrote:
Let me put it too you like this. If you could go back [Intime] what would you change? Or into the [Future]
Woop and I can retire early.
wrong. In deceleration time around the spaceship viewer begins to fall back to it's original relative perspective. Theory says that at light speed there is no passage through time for the passenger compared to the outside. Once the passenger decelerates the passage of time inside compared to outside begins to equalize again due to relativity. The faster you go the slower time 'moves' for you, but only when you're watching the outside. With no windows or sensors it would seem like regular time to you the passenger. Time does not go backwards it can only go forward, how fast depends on your frame of reference. For us it's 24 hrs / day where as if we were doing light speed and passed a planet, we'd see that years have passed once we see it fading in the distance.Vub wrote:
That's the Twin Paradox and in fact doesn't work. Einstein's Theory of Relativity only works in a non-accelerating frame of reference. True, that while the spacefaring twin is in his spaceship, he will age, from the Earth twin's perspective, slower. However, to return to Earth to verify that he has aged less, the space faring twin must turn back, so must decelerate. Once this happens, everything goes back to normal and they will actually be of the same age once reunited.puckmercury wrote:
Put in another way, if one twin remains on Earth, and another travels at the speed of light for 10 earth years, once the speedy twin is once again at rest, he will not have aged while the twin who was Earthbound will find himself with a decade more experience.
Another thing, if you ever manage to travel faster than the speed of light, and you look back, you will actually see yourself travelling backwards and leaving the destination you've just reached. So you will actually be travelling back in time from a little bit in the future.
This thread's really interesting.
If you could see out the front of your spacecraft, you'd stop seeing light sources in the front, it would stretch from the front to the sides and further back. Going away from an observer, if travelling at light speed, you'd be invisible
well ultimately, the quandry of a paradox is two opposing truths. As this situation has never arrisen, the ultimate "truth" has yet to be discovered. For what you said to be true, the space faring twin would have to age at an accellerated rate as he returned to Earth to compensate for the relative lack of aging during the journey.Vub wrote:
That's the Twin Paradox and in fact doesn't work. Einstein's Theory of Relativity only works in a non-accelerating frame of reference. True, that while the spacefaring twin is in his spaceship, he will age, from the Earth twin's perspective, slower. However, to return to Earth to verify that he has aged less, the space faring twin must turn back, so must decelerate. Once this happens, everything goes back to normal and they will actually be of the same age once reunited.puckmercury wrote:
Put in another way, if one twin remains on Earth, and another travels at the speed of light for 10 earth years, once the speedy twin is once again at rest, he will not have aged while the twin who was Earthbound will find himself with a decade more experience.
Another thing, if you ever manage to travel faster than the speed of light, and you look back, you will actually see yourself travelling backwards and leaving the destination you've just reached. So you will actually be travelling back in time from a little bit in the future.
This thread's really interesting.
Interesting theory surrounding looking back and seeing yourself, but I don't think that would happen at constant velocity. As you are at the same speed as yourself relative to yourself and your vessel. Similar phenominon occurs when travelling at or faster than the speed of sound. When you break the "sound barrier" you as the traveller feel no affects. The sonic boom is just your wake. You do, however, outrun the sound of your engines. This is because of an extreme doppler effect essentially. Sound is merely a wave (light is both a wave AND a particle however) and travels in the air. As you are travelling faster than the sound can escape the engines, it never reaches you, the passenger. Observers from the Earth will still be greeted with shattered windows, however.
Just as sound does not distort within the plane, light should not distort within your vessel. If you are looking outside your vessel, I suppose the view would depend on the speed. If you are travelling AT the speed of light, then the image behind you would be constant. If you travel a billion light years away instantaniously and then look back at the Earth, you will see it as it was a billion years ago. This does not mean you have travlled into the past. It simply means that you have travelled faster than the light reflected from the Earth carrying the information you then witness.
If you travel faster than the speed of light, you would still see light in front of you, as it would be on a collision course and antiparallel to your direction of travel. However, I would bellieve that behind you, you would in fact see time reversing as you said. Again, this is not indicitive of a backward motion in time, merely you outrunning the waves of light.
noone knows whether light is percievable at incoming speeds over the speed of light
I don't think you'd see time reversing behind you, rather just catching up as in shockwaves and boat wakes
I don't think you'd see time reversing behind you, rather just catching up as in shockwaves and boat wakes
well of course no one knows, which is why we are discussing it in the debate section and not declaring general truths.
Why would you not see time reversing? I'm speaking conceptually, because obviously the Earth would be so far away that even modern instruments would have a difficult time looking that far back. You perceive sound when travelling faster or slower than it, just at a distorted frequency. So, as light also exibits wave behavior, I suppose one could then conclude that the light would be somehow distorted. I postulate to you that the distortion would be the perception of time reversing. Again, this would not actually be time itself reversing just outrunning the light waves, so you would be perceiving them in reverse. We travel slower than light now and perceive light waves, we perceive them in a progressive fashion. It stands to reason then that we would be able to observe them in a regressive fashion as well.
Why would you not see time reversing? I'm speaking conceptually, because obviously the Earth would be so far away that even modern instruments would have a difficult time looking that far back. You perceive sound when travelling faster or slower than it, just at a distorted frequency. So, as light also exibits wave behavior, I suppose one could then conclude that the light would be somehow distorted. I postulate to you that the distortion would be the perception of time reversing. Again, this would not actually be time itself reversing just outrunning the light waves, so you would be perceiving them in reverse. We travel slower than light now and perceive light waves, we perceive them in a progressive fashion. It stands to reason then that we would be able to observe them in a regressive fashion as well.
A moot point since at the speed of light as you said mass is infinate, thus the energy required would also have to be infinate. We won't ever be able to reach the speed of light, since the generation of infinate energy is by its own defintion impossible. (keep in mind that mr einstien has shown us that mass and energy are interchangeble) The only way possible to reach the speed of light is to reduce mass to zero...which basically means nothing but light itself can reach the speed of light.puckmercury wrote:
That which we forget we are doomed to repeat.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
u do NOT want to stop WW2 from happening, watch timecop in berlin, and you'll know why.
To address the general idea of time travel, my problem is not a technological one but a logical paradox. If you travel back in time, then you in theory change the future. Once the point in the future then arrived when you travelled back in time, there is no longer a need to go back in time to change what you just changed. As there is no need to travel back in time, you don't travel back in time. Since the voyage never occurs, the change in the past never happens either and the whole thing is null. There are MANY other logical paradoxes that present themselves when considering time travel.
That being said, I think as close as we'll get is travelling at the speed of light, which is the exact opposite of time travel. In a very real sense, we are all travelling through time. Every second is a voyage so to speak. When you are at the speed of light, not only are you infinite in mass and your length parallel to the direction of travel approaches 0, but time stops relative to the universe you are travelling in. Put in another way, if one twin remains on Earth, and another travels at the speed of light for 10 earth years, once the speedy twin is once again at rest, he will not have aged while the twin who was Earthbound will find himself with a decade more experience.
which is why this is theory. I was quoting Einstein's theories on speed of light travel. Given he was a brilliant individual, but I don't pretend that his theories will hold up indefinitely. As you stated, mass and energy may be converted interchangeably, so the key to light speed travel may lie in just that; the controlled conversion of mass to energy and back again.ryanclark182 wrote:
A moot point since at the speed of light as you said mass is infinate, thus the energy required would also have to be infinate. We won't ever be able to reach the speed of light, since the generation of infinate energy is by its own defintion impossible. (keep in mind that mr einstien has shown us that mass and energy are interchangeble) The only way possible to reach the speed of light is to reduce mass to zero...which basically means nothing but light itself can reach the speed of light.puckmercury wrote:
That which we forget we are doomed to repeat.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
u do NOT want to stop WW2 from happening, watch timecop in berlin, and you'll know why.
To address the general idea of time travel, my problem is not a technological one but a logical paradox. If you travel back in time, then you in theory change the future. Once the point in the future then arrived when you travelled back in time, there is no longer a need to go back in time to change what you just changed. As there is no need to travel back in time, you don't travel back in time. Since the voyage never occurs, the change in the past never happens either and the whole thing is null. There are MANY other logical paradoxes that present themselves when considering time travel.
That being said, I think as close as we'll get is travelling at the speed of light, which is the exact opposite of time travel. In a very real sense, we are all travelling through time. Every second is a voyage so to speak. When you are at the speed of light, not only are you infinite in mass and your length parallel to the direction of travel approaches 0, but time stops relative to the universe you are travelling in. Put in another way, if one twin remains on Earth, and another travels at the speed of light for 10 earth years, once the speedy twin is once again at rest, he will not have aged while the twin who was Earthbound will find himself with a decade more experience.
Light travels at the same speed everywhere in your frame of reference, so if you travel faster than the speed of light, the light reflecting off you is still faster than you. So if you look back after travelling faster than light, you won't see yourself.
I should have clarified, by "yourself" I was referring to your ship which would have an image as a resultant of light waves outside your frame of reference.