LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksTime travel can not be discovered by humans before the human extinction because, if it were possible, humans from the future would have already told us. Or mabye they just choose not to?
March 5th, 2008, 10:45 PM
Time travel can not be discovered by humans before the human extinction because, if it were possible, humans from the future would have already told us. Or mabye they just choose not to?
maybe not, maybe they haven't discovered it yet, most disoverises get discover by accident :-D
Assuming that organism chooses to tell us about time travel...Originally Posted by icu
An x amount of organisms accross the x amount of planets in our universe with an infinity amount of time produces an extreamly large chance of time travel discovery. If nothing in the infinite future has figured out time travel, time must always travel in a stright line.
Time travel is a very interesting concept to most. Einstein's special theory of relativity addresses speed/motion and its effect on slowing time. This would place a time traveler into the past. The question is what can possibly move time faster? What will place a time traveler into the future?
It stands to reason, if traveling at C slows time, traveling at -C should make time run quicker. What is -C ? I don't know but it has to work in both directions. Right?
and who says they're gonna come back and tell you personally? Just cos you don't know, doesnt make it not so.
time travel is possible you just know it because we have not yet gone back in time to channge it yet or they have come back and you just dont remeber the way it was before.
You can try to explain it all you want forever...
Our mind is capable of "time traveling"
and we don't even really know what our mind is
but the future leaks in sometimes
and the past is always changing.
Not too literally, not too seriously
sometimes someminds bend the linear.
like brains sucking in dimensions reminiscent of the black hole
doing as it pleases previously unknown just beyond the spectrum.
Time travel makes no sense whatsoever...
Mabye if the observer was moving close to light speed faster than the motionless viewer, the observer would be in the past from the veiwer's perspective, but from the observer's perspective the motionless viewer would be in the future?
If our galaxy was moving close to the speed of light into one direction, then if someone left our galaxy they would be in the future from the galaxy's perspective, is that right? Does the special theory of relativity work conversly?
If time travel was possible and the Universe did begin as we think, with the Big Bang, there would be many successive big bangs to contend with. It is believed that just after the Big Bang the matter that was emitted travelled much faster than light speed for, I believe, a few seconds. If this occured that matter would have gone back in time to a time before the Big Bang occured and would have went through another Big Bang. Then the matter from the second Big Bang would have gone back in time as well. The cycle would be never ending.
We're all travelling in time, every single quark in the universe has its own time frame, even though two parties may not know it, two parties can have identical reference frames. But if you go about assuming that the scientific community bites your head of :?. What if you were once in the position another object is in? Then you become the third observor.
Everything has its own time, how you move in it is up to you, the laws of physics cannot govern everything because if they did the universe would be far less complicated than it is. I'm sorry to say that to Einstein, but the laws of physics are not the same for everything in the universe, they vary for some and for some they don't, and that is one of the principles of Special relativity, which develops to general relativity. Einsteins theory is correct donn't get me wrong, but can be far modified.
"Not only is time neither space nor matter, it does not exist, it was created by man, he had to create it in order to be able to calculate the speed and distance of motion. Space and motion makes up the fabric of the universe. If you use the word motion instead of time in the theory of relativity, the results remain unchanged and everything is easier to understand and time travel can be relegated to the trash pile, where it belongs."
Is this true?
I don't think anyone really knows what time is. I'm reading a chapter in a book that deals with what exactly time is and there are various theories on what exactly it is. I've posted in forums askign what exactly time was and I've gotten various responses. The simplest one is "It's what clocks measure" which I guess makes it a man made object but the amount of... well... time it takes to get from one half-life of a mineral to the next half-life of a mineral isn't man made. The best answer I've got is time is what the fourth dimensions is from the perspective of three dimensional creatures such as ourselves.
ahh but wat u forget is that im from the year 3214 and i know you die horibly and painfully for stating this in this science forum
Alex, there are a few things to learn... WE WONT LIVE TO BE LIVING IN 3214 and we wont die because we would be already dead.
Time is change.
Okay, before we start killing eachother over the definition of time, may I point out that time is the definition of both man experienced change though the time dimension and also the definition of the time dimension.
(it's like not seperating space and speed)
I had a good theory on time travel: The reverse movement though time will result in a total halt in human experienced time but will not change the spatial coordinates of the object.
Sayed differently: If I change the value on my x axis (though walking) and this will not change my y value, why would I change my x,y,z coordinates if I change my time coordinate?
So miomaz, you are saying that if one went back in time now, the Earth would move away with everything else like the sun and the galaxy etc? Is that what you meant a few months ago when we argued? (I was SVWillmer back then).
When discussing 'Time Travel' to often the need to exceed light speed is used to disqualify any prospect.
Ronald Mallet, Physics Professor at the University of Connecticut with a life time desire to travel in time, as some interesting ideas and easily found on a 'google' search. His Dad died at 31, when he was a kid, giving birth to his search...to save his Dad...
Basically, its a machine that twist time allowing his machine to advance in time. He feels there is something beyond energy that travels several to hundreds of times that of energy itself. He claims this will be tested in the next ten years and time travel can be a reality in 100 years. Unfortunately, the machine even if it works can take you only forward and then back to the time the machine was built.
Machine concepts are out there and many being worked on. Some feel the Philadelphia Experiment, was in fact a result and a movie made on it.
Personally I question that.
Prof. Mallet, has feelings on dimensions as well, feeling if you do travel in time, your in other dimensions. Not said, my guess he has a vision of an after life....
Claiming that the absence of time travellers in our time is a proof to impossibility of building a time machine seems to be a weak argument. Before that time paradox would be on the stage; that is if the humans from the future would come and save the human race from extinction then there would be no reason for them to come since the human race would already saved bla bla.. you know that.
Yet another point of view would be assuming the existence of infinitely many universes ( than is it a multiverse??) in which every possible scenario is happening simultaneously, and by time travelling we are just able to switch between these universes (or realities whatever). But again obviously it would be meaningless to travel in time to save the humanity since it is already destroyed in infinitely many universes and endured in others.
Einsteins work never suggested time travel to be possible - only that "viewing" alternate times might be. The speed of light has absoloutely no significance to any prospect of physically "travelling" back in time.
The only way that it would ever be possible is that we discover an infinite number of parallel universes, there being one mirroring ours exactly but for the length of time it has existed - and then a method of exacting the desired time (universe) from the infinite possibilities - and then a method of travelling to that universe.
"Time" is not a place.
well actually there are more possible ways: If I would be god, If I had a machine that could travel though time... (the point is that they are all extremely improbable)
Time is not a cow.
425 Chaotic Requisition, move away in what (time- or spatial-dimension)
--if you meant time:
Yes! You will move though time, backwards.
--if you meant the spatial dimensions:
No, if you change a value of a axis (x,y,z,time) the other 3 axis will not be changed. Pretty simple, wonder why nobody thought about this before.
Observing the Universe we observe events that occured millions and billions of years ago.
OK work with me on this.
My understanding is that "observation" of an event that occured in the past is as similar as observing an event that takes place in the present. A snapshot. A picture on our digital cam. It's all the same. Observation is observation. It is a constant so-to-speak.
Observation requires light. Distance allows us to observe past events. So what do we have here? Light, distance, and observation (someone looking at it). By looking at the stars, we know, an event does not need to be observed when it occurs. It can be observed in the future. The question is, how can we control what and when we observe it. If it were possible to capture light and release it on demand, one would be capable of observing a past event.
Picture this. Year 2120. You pick up your iTime handheld and select your coordinates and click "go". Now you find yourself observing Lee Harvey Oswald taking aim at JFK in Dallas, November 22, 1963. Observing it in real time just as if you were looking at the stars.
Far fetched? Maybe not...
March 9th, 2008, 11:22 PM
Sigh... Time is only what your mind makes of it... If your brain senses a dangerous situation or some sort of stimulating instance, it has been known to be able to take everything in at a faster pace, causing time to appear to slow down for the person affected.
As for being able to reverse the flow of every single particle and wave of energy in the universe in order to go back in time? I do not believe that will ever be possible.
I don't believe it is possible for the energy and matter of this universe to be able to leave the universe in a bubble and then travel to a specific point of time-space of the universe as has been proposed in magazines like popular science.
To me, if it is of the universe it cannot leave the universe.
In order for us to go that far away from our planet to observe that light ( of JFK's assassination), we would need to exceed the speed of light and travel past the images, which is not possible.
That was just an example. I would think to accomplish this in the future one would need to capture the light of an event locally so we would not have to chase it down (up?). I don't know? Maybe a device that reflects light infinitely until it is decided to be released and observed.
In order for us to go that far away from our planet to observe that light ( of JFK's assassination), we would need to exceed the speed of light and travel past the images, which is not possible.
March 10th, 2008, 11:24 AM
Hmmm, what kind of device can capture the light of a single moment locally so that it can be looked at later.... oh wait, like a CAMERA!!!!
=p
Try not to overanalyze stuff so much!!
if there was a device i am sure this would all be moot. in my feeble mind i would suggest a storage device of sorts that may be developed from a series of mirrors that would place light in an infinite loop of reflections.Hmmm, what kind of device can capture the light of a single moment locally so that it can be looked at later.... oh wait, like a CAMERA!!!!
wasn't it some time back in the early 1800's that the director of the US Patent office declared no need for this office anylonger because all inventions were all ready invented. they fired his azz before he tied off his horse that evening.
seems fairly plausible to me. "it's all in the mirrors"
Ok, lets assume you TRY building such a device;
1. The mirrors you used would have to reflect 100% of the light
2. The light would have to be "Caught" between the mirrors
-this would require the mirrors to move at impossible speeds
3. Once you let the light escape you would have to have some way to study it... the best way I know would be by transferring it to film...
4. You would need some way to ensure the photons don't collide with each other.
5. Cameras are much cheaper, more probable, and do the exact same thing you are trying to do with some sort of over-complicated device
Can't disagree with you but I would say it is vastly easier to point out the inefficiencies. I can also do that. The focus should be on "frame of reference" and not frame and shutter.
If the universe is infinite than it's true to say all observable events have a beginning and no end. That would mean the event is constant. If the universe is finite, all events end when the final observation is made. The final observation is based on frame of reference or the most distant measurement from where the event occured.
In an infinite universe one may point out there may be nothing infinitely out there to observe it. Does that really matter?
As implausible as it is, the idea would be (for example) to eliminate the need to be light years from earth where event X was observed (from earth) and then observe event X again at some point light years away from the earth. Certainly its impossible for one to observe the same event from two frames of reference but not impossible for two observers to record the same event X at different times.
I don't think I fully understand what you are trying to say here. The universe is finite, that is why, as we find evidence the universe is bigger, the age of the universe is lowered. If we set up a colony in space 200 light years from earth, and they got there in 200.1 years, the light would still be traveling away from them at the same speed. When they got to their position and slowed down they would see earth as it was 200 years ago which would be one-tenth of a year after they left.
Now, if they recorded all the events that happened on a specific spot on the planet at the same time as the folks back home, they would record an event that occurred 200 years prior to when the same place was being recorded on earth. When they sent the data back lets say by a laser, the people on earth would receive the data 400 years after the event happened. If the people on earth sent images of the event they recorded it would reach the colony at the same time they would see it themselves. If they recorded each other, they would both receive images of themselves taken 400 years ago.
This is all pretty impractical especially since we can keep historical image records of events to be later studied by future generations without sending a colony 200 light years away.
thats not what i said...
observe an event from earth. ie. the birth of a star 100 light years away. someone else who resides in the universe 50 light years further away from the birth of that star will observe it at a later time.
many more feel the universe is infinite than those who believe it to be finite. space is similar to a balloon in the sense that it grows as needed but can never pop.
The Universe is most commonly defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them.
Astronomical observations indicate that the universe is 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years old and at least 93 billion light years across. At this point in time (BBT) all matter and energy of the observable universe was concentrated in one point of infinite density. After the Big Bang the universe started to expand to its present form. Since special relativity states that matter cannot exceed the speed of light in a fixed space-time, it may seem paradoxical that two galaxies can be separated by 93 billion light years in 13 billion years; however, this separation is a natural consequence of general relativity. Stated simply, space can expand with no intrinsic limit on its rate; thus, two galaxies can separate more quickly than the speed of light if the space between them grows. Experimental measurements such as the redshifts and spatial distribution of distant galaxies, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the relative percentages of the lighter chemical elements, support this theoretical expansion and, more generally, the Big Bang theory, which proposes that space itself was created ex nihilo at a specific time in the past. Recent observations have shown that this expansion is accelerating, has no limitation and that most of the matter and energy in the universe is fundamentally different from that observed on Earth and not directly observable (cf. dark energy).
March 10th, 2008, 10:14 PM
Your not looking at it in the right way. Nothing travels faster than light, there is no way to get any type of information to go from one place to another that is faster than the speed of light. If the image(s) of the assassination have been already traveling through the universe for years, we would have to move closer to it to obtain the past images, you can not catch up to something moving at the speed of light, because that is the speed limit.Hmmm, what kind of device can capture the light of a single moment locally so that it can be looked at later.... oh wait, like a CAMERA!!!!
=p
Try not to overanalyze stuff so much!!
Were not talking about looking at pictures taken at the time, we are talking about experiencing the past.
Everyone agrees C is fastest. Maybe you are assumming we are alone and no one else is out there - no one else can observe? Maybe you can not be hypothetical?Your not looking at it in the right way. Nothing travels faster than light, there is no way to get any type of information to go from one place to another that is faster than the speed of light. If the image(s) of the assassination have been already traveling through the universe for years, we would have to move closer to it to obtain the past images, you can not catch up to something moving at the speed of light, because that is the speed limit.
Right, but even if someone else is 50 light years away, and they send the data back, it won't get back for 50 years, so you would be looking 100 years into your planet's past, which would work, but if you are conversing with an advanced extrasolar intelligence you probably have the technology to record your own data from your own planet. As for Playing it back so as to simulate the event and re-experience the thing for yourself, that technology is probably not too far off.
I like to have an open mind about what I know little about. I don't feel we know enough about light to understand it one ioda nor to harness it. However, I feel light is more interesting than any element in the universe. I read somewhere it is possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe we know. What we detect to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe. Whoa! Yes, it is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different.
In any event, if this is even remotely true, if this is at all possible, it is also possible to think that mini events like the Challenger diaster or Nagasaki are endlessly circumnavigating the universe somewhere as we type and read this. So what? Well... we just need to learn how to observe it.
I just want to make a point. I am not trying to be pratical here or even functional. I am trying to talk about observation. Everything observed from day 1 to now has been observed in the past. It is impossible to observe anything in the present. There seems to be an implication made when observing distant events as if they are not the same as observing a local event because we are looking far into the past. I think the truth is, an observation is an observation and wheather you are observing something from 100 years ago or 1/100th second ago, its all real time to the observer.
Now, it gets more interesting to me when the same event can be observed from 2 different points of reference. What it proves, is if it were possible to travel faster than C, it would be possible to travel into the future. Why future? Because you would be capable of predicting an event that has yet to take place at the current point of reference.
Yes, if there is another observer of course they can see the past because the images are not instantly transfered over such a vast distance. Something as small as an event on earth probably woulden't get far though, at least not far enough to reach other life.
We are always sort of seeing the past, I guess, because we see with light and that takes time to reach our eyes, plus the time it takes for us to process it.
Actually, you would only be able to look at an object 50 light years away, get there faster than the speed of light, watch what happens, go back to your planet, and tell everyone back home, hey, watch this place for a while this is what is going to happen... You wouldn't really be predicting the future as it has already happened, you would just be telling everyone when they would be able to see it for themselves.I just want to make a point. I am not trying to be pratical here or even functional. I am trying to talk about observation. Everything observed from day 1 to now has been observed in the past. It is impossible to observe anything in the present. There seems to be an implication made when observing distant events as if they are not the same as observing a local event because we are looking far into the past. I think the truth is, an observation is an observation and wheather you are observing something from 100 years ago or 1/100th second ago, its all real time to the observer.
Now, it gets more interesting to me when the same event can be observed from 2 different points of reference. What it proves, is if it were possible to travel faster than C, it would be possible to travel into the future. Why future? Because you would be capable of predicting an event that has yet to take place at the current point of reference.
It doesn't matter when you observed it, where you observed it from, or how many people were observing it, if it came from a place that was 20 light years away, it happened 20 years ago, if it came from a place 50 light years away, it happened 50 years ago.
If you are 20 light years away from a supernova, and someone else is 90 light years away from the same supernova, you see it 20 years after it actually happened and they see it 70 years after you see it, 90 years after it actually happened.
Also, light is not an element...If that definition was to be taken literally...
so if hired a gypsy to read her crystal ball and she tells everyone that the northstar will explode tomorrow and it does, then that was not predicting the future because it really happened years ago?
Right. Assuming the gypsy was an extra-terrestrial being who knew how to travel faster than light, she was only telling you something that you can see tomorrow that actually happened anywhere between 400 and 460 years ago.
Assuming it was a lucky guess, she was wrong about it happening in the future, it happened 430+ or - 30 Years ago tomorrow.
Assuming she was really telling the future she would have told you "The North Star will Blow up Tomorrow, but you won't see it happen for another 430 + or - 30 Years from tomorrow."
| « Harvesting the Moon | predetermination » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
