June 25th, 2008, 02:59 PM
Hi
i'm new to this forum and this is my first topic so i'm not sure i chose the right section for it
any way
I'v been wondering lately is it possible to make an actual time machine ?
to me that's impossible cus' going back in time, it means like bringing back the dead to life and that's completely unreasonable don't u agree ?
i would really love to hear what u guys think of this
Why would bringing the dead back to life sound unreasonable? After all, you ARE traveling back in time...
The question I guess is, "can you control yourself (your personal time) while going back in time?"
We have constructed machines to travel into the future, in a way. The pyramids were vehicles for transporting their occupants' souls to the afterlife, where they'd be immortalized amongst the gods. On his own terms Tutankhamun attained his wish. You know we are circling the Earth and contemplating details of his private life... maybe even clone that guy's DNA someday. He got it right.
Going back in time, we do constantly. Every time we re-evaluate something from the past, it happens. We rewrite and re-frame history both long-term and short-term. Consciousness is time travel.
If you mean destroying our matter in space, so it actually vanishes like *pop* now I'm gone in the flesh with dinosaurs... that's unnecessary and impossible besides IMO. The flesh is not the time.
Originally Posted by DivideByZero
u can't just bring the dead back to life no one can except god
and if it's possible then life wouldn't be organized it will be a total mess
because if man could possibly make a time machine he will not make one by time he'll make dozens of it so every body will just be going back and forth in time changing history or the future and that's why it's unreasonable.
Looks like you answered your own question. God's the only one that can do it. He doesn't exist so it can't be done.
u can't just bring the dead back to life no one can except god
and if it's possible then life wouldn't be organized it will be a total mess
because if man could possibly make a time machine he will not make one by time he'll make dozens of it so every body will just be going back and forth in time changing history or the future and that's why it's unreasonable.
Mark Twain said "the only difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to seem reasonable".
Time travel is suspended until you all grow up !
There's been so much discussion about this topic going on in the scientific community for decades, and still no one has the answer. In order to travel backwards or forwards in time, one would have to either travel faster than the speed of light (most likely not happening), do some fancy quantum tunneling (and in good quantum humor, there's a 0.000...1% chance perhaps that'll happen), or somehow transcend the three dimensions so that you are free to wander about in the fourth (the time line).
None of these seem quite probable in our lifetime, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Time travel is possible. All you need to accomplish the construction of a time machine is persisitence, determination and of course, motivation.
Looks like you answered your own question. God's the only one that can do it. He doesn't exist so it can't be done.[/quote]
what do u mean god doesn't exist !
well if he doesn't then how come this universe so very very organized
nothing makes it self every thing has a maker and god ( Allah ) made this universe just try to sit in a quiet place and think about it
faster slower
non of these will work believe me
we are now living the future day by day so there isn't any future than the one that's coming tomorrow and if we're meant to go back in time then everybody and by that i mean evry live being on earth will not one person
let me tell u something poeple work with limited sources and limited powers there are somethings that are beyond our limits
that's how god made us and that's how wer're going to live until the end
the thing that made u ( not ur parents ) is more powerful than u and it's perfect and that's god
even u , if u make somthing or invent it it's never more powerful than u
do u get me ?
(( the maker is always powerful than what he had done ))
It is probably best if we keep this thread focused on your original question concerning time machines. There are many threads in the forum where the existence or non-existence of God are actively discussed.
You will find that there are perfectly satisfactory explanations for the apparent order of the Universe. You will also find that some use these satisfactory explanations as a deeper evidence for the existence of a supreme being.
Both sides of the argument are supported by many individuals who have spent a long time sitting in quiet places thinking about it. Within The Science Forum we favour arguments that can be tested and ideas that can be proved wrong if they are wrong. That is the way science works. That also eliminates many of the faith based/personal revelation arguments used by believers.
To repeat my orignal point, lets keep this thread devoted to time machine discussion. Take up the on-going debate about God in one of the other threads, if you wish.
i guess ur right but i still don't think that someone will be able to make a time machineIt is probably best if we keep this thread focused on your original question concerning time machines. There are many threads in the forum where the existence or non-existence of God are actively discussed.
You will find that there are perfectly satisfactory explanations for the apparent order of the Universe. You will also find that some use these satisfactory explanations as a deeper evidence for the existence of a supreme being.
Both sides of the argument are supported by many individuals who have spent a long time sitting in quiet places thinking about it. Within The Science Forum we favour arguments that can be tested and ideas that can be proved wrong if they are wrong. That is the way science works. That also eliminates many of the faith based/personal revelation arguments used by believers.
To repeat my orignal point, lets keep this thread devoted to time machine discussion. Take up the on-going debate about God in one of the other threads, if you wish.
You are basing this on what is called personal incredulity. However, just because you choose to believe something is impossible does not necessarily make it so.
Time travel is thought to be consistent with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, so that many physicists feel it is entirely possible, at least in theory. You might like to read the following link. Since you chose to place this thread in Philosophical Discussion I have selected a link from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-machine/
Here is an extract from the article's opening remarks.
Recent years have seen a growing consensus in the philosophical community that the grandfather paradox and similar logical puzzles do not preclude the possibility of time travel scenarios that utilize spacetimes containing closed timelike curves. At the same time, physicists, who for half a century acknowledged that the general theory of relativity is compatible with such spacetimes, have intensely studied the question whether the operation of a time machine would be admissible in the context of general relativity theory or theories that attempt to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics. A time machine is a device which brings about closed timelike curves—and thus enables time travel—where none would have existed otherwise. The physics literature contains various no-go theorems for time machines, i.e., theorems which purport to establish that, under physically plausible assumptions, the operation of a time machine is impossible. We conclude that for the time being there exists no conclusive no-go theorem against time machines.
If you can warp space-time enough with enough gravity, your frame of reference may actually put you in a situation where you have actually gone back in time.
As far as traveling into the future that depends on your relative speed and frame of reference. If you can move into another frame of reference and then back into the one you originally came from, the amount of time that you have experienced is different than that of someone who never left your initial frame.
i'll tell u what without any further discussion let's just wait and seeYou are basing this on what is called personal incredulity. However, just because you choose to believe something is impossible does not necessarily make it so.
Time travel is thought to be consistent with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, so that many physicists feel it is entirely possible, at least in theory. You might like to read the following link. Since you chose to place this thread in Philosophical Discussion I have selected a link from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-machine/
Here is an extract from the article's opening remarks.
Recent years have seen a growing consensus in the philosophical community that the grandfather paradox and similar logical puzzles do not preclude the possibility of time travel scenarios that utilize spacetimes containing closed timelike curves. At the same time, physicists, who for half a century acknowledged that the general theory of relativity is compatible with such spacetimes, have intensely studied the question whether the operation of a time machine would be admissible in the context of general relativity theory or theories that attempt to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics. A time machine is a device which brings about closed timelike curves—and thus enables time travel—where none would have existed otherwise. The physics literature contains various no-go theorems for time machines, i.e., theorems which purport to establish that, under physically plausible assumptions, the operation of a time machine is impossible. We conclude that for the time being there exists no conclusive no-go theorem against time machines.
who'll make a time machine and if no one did in the time of our lives then congrats for whom who'll do it after we die.
We are not living the future. The future will always be what comes before us. We are living the "now", an everchanging "now", at a rate of 1 second per 1 second. Time travel, however, occurs when we have gained enough velocity to bypass that 1s/s rate so that we are living at, say, 2 seconds per second. Anything greater than the 1:1 ratio that life proceeds in, is valid enough to be called "time travel" into the "future".
Time travel to the past, however, seems a slightly more fickle thing, and in that case you'd have to decelerate in a <1 ratio, 1 second per 2 seconds, or something. And even so, you wouldn't be heading into -your- past, just the past of someone else.
That can also read as "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is thought to be consistent with time travel among other seemingly absurd claims... yet many physicists feel it is entirely possible, at least in theory."
If I sell you a car that I claim can, in fact, flyif accelerated well above legal speed... hm... no way to test that but the car is loaded with features and gets good mileage in the city so why not buy it eh? The fact is we don't really know what's going on under the hood. We can't even agree on what time is.
Pong, I am not expressing a view. I am introducing into the discussion the fact that time travel is thought to be consistent, by a sizeable body of physicists, with one of the fundamental theories with which we describe the universe.
Previously opinions upon the feasibility of time travel were being expressed. Hopefully further discussion can avoid opinions and focus on the practicality (which you raise) or the consequences (which motivation has touched on).
Maybe time travel is possible, but even so, you would most likely be instantly destroyed by all the energy needed to make the travel. Maybe you'll destroy reality itself in the process
this actually makes senseMaybe time travel is possible, but even so, you would most likely be instantly destroyed by all the energy needed to make the travel. Maybe you'll destroy reality itself in the process
Time travel via speed, has pretty well been replaced by machines that could warp time in a stationary position, according to theory. I have mention 'Ronald Mallet' many times on this forum who is a recognized physicist, teaching at the University of Massachusetts. His idea claims that for time travel, the person or object traveling in time, would need an exit point or a like machine. That is from any original machine forward would be the limits for such travel. In short, Dr. Mallet feels energy flows through 'tachyons' which dwarf energy (light) speeds, warp the energy, then in that field, you could walk through time...
people the main idea here is ( Time machine ) u know a thing that u sit inside and turn it on ( a vehicle )
can human make that ???
Ophiolite just said that, according to one of the fundamental theories with which we describe the universe, the answer is, in fact, yes.
I love "in fact". Such a brazen little flag waving.
He said that current theory in fact does allow for the possibility of time travel. What is wrong with that?Ophiolite just said that, according to one of the fundamental theories with which we describe the universe, the answer is, in fact, yes.
I love "in fact". Such a brazen little flag waving.
Nothing; I'm not complaining. According to our best understanding of the universe time travel is possible... and in a way it happens all the time.
I.e. I too bought the car that's supposed to fly.
Ophiolite just said that, according to one of the fundamental theories with which we describe the universe, the answer is, in fact, yes.
I love "in fact". Such a brazen little flag waving.
in fact, No
like i agreed with obviously, we could be destroyed by all the energy
Seeing as how the very fact that matter exists is rather impossible to attribute to any cause, other then the fact that it does exist by some means (as far as we know), than I see no reason why time travel cant happen lol. Lets leave this question to those that don't exist please.
Hi
I think that the people posting here have a different interpretation of time. If this is true which it probally is on some level - we are discussing a topic which everyone is seeing in a different way to one another making any real argument unrealistic and kind of pointless anyway. Ask yourself - why am i really posting here?
The defination of time differs from person to person. A man who has a pretty good knowledge of it is Einstein.. In a way his interpretation of time did not include a past present or future, these are all mere measurments we use to coordinate our days, essentially a clock does not tell the time, it is only a battery operated dial which moves around a face with numbers inprinted on it, used for measuring the things we need to.
Einstein understood time specifically as 'a measurement of the motion of matter'. He also understood that it is sometimes wrong to think of matter in subjective form and that it makes more sense to consider all matter as one unified whole...
So when we think about creating a machine to sit or stand inside of and travel back in 'time', in effect and affect what we are doing is 'reversing' what we perceive to be the 'present' and all its surroundings backwards in its motion - like unwinding an object which has been twisted, 'time' (the motion of matter) is not like a catalog where we can flick through and pick a date of arrival, it is a constant unfolding/change of matter, if it was possible reverse this it would cause a so called 'butterfly affect' which would disturb the entire universe, eventually.. (thats if it was done ofc)..
Here one could argue that the time machine would be indepentent of the space and matter surrounding it - allowing it to function in its own contained space not affecting that around it.. But a little thought into this shows that it would only have the ability to experience past time within that small space of which the machine occupies, making it an all round pretty boring experience as we would not be able to experience anything bigger than the machine itself or its container... So no Hitler meetings and no visiting the cave men to give them a torch or whatever.
I think more than anything people want to believe in moving through what has already been or what has yet to come. I think that there is no other time than the moment before your very senses, if you seemingly live a few steps behind, in memories, you are not there in that memory, you experience the memory as an activity within the brain in this ever changing moment, many things are happening while you maybe think you are 'somewhere else in time' ofc..
''Time'' is a measurement of matter.
All ''Matter'' including us as natural human beings are interconnected with all other matter in the universe - this is clearly evident as we breath in 'air' which fills most of space.
Reality as we know it is always changing due to the physical laws of nature, why would it go back on itself?
that's a very wise talk i agreeHi
I think that the people posting here have a different interpretation of time. If this is true which it probally is on some level - we are discussing a topic which everyone is seeing in a different way to one another making any real argument unrealistic and kind of pointless anyway. Ask yourself - why am i really posting here?
The defination of time differs from person to person. A man who has a pretty good knowledge of it is Einstein
Einstein understood time specifically as 'a measurement of the motion of matter'. He also understood that it is sometimes wrong to think of matter in subjective form and that it makes more sense to consider all matter as one unified whole...
So when we think about creating a machine to sit or stand inside of and travel back in 'time', in effect and affect what we are doing is 'reversing' what we perceive to be the 'present' and all its surroundings backwards in its motion - like unwinding an object which has been twisted, 'time' (the motion of matter) is not like a catalog where we can flick through and pick a date of arrival, it is a constant unfolding/change of matter, if it was possible reverse this it would cause a so called 'butterfly affect' which would disturb the entire universe, eventually.. (thats if it was done ofc)..
Here one could argue that the time machine would be indepentent of the space and matter surrounding it - allowing it to function in its own contained space not affecting that around it.. But a little thought into this shows that it would only have the ability to experience past time within that small space of which the machine occupies, making it an all round pretty boring experience as we would not be able to experience anything bigger than the machine itself or its container... So no Hitler meetings and no visiting the cave men to give them a torch or whatever.
I think more than anything people want to believe in moving through what has already been or what has yet to come. I think that there is no other time than the moment before your very senses, if you seemingly live a few steps behind, in memories, you are not there in that memory, you experience the memory as an activity within the brain in this ever changing moment, many things are happening while you maybe think you are 'somewhere else in time' ofc..
''Time'' is a measurement of matter.
All ''Matter'' including us as natural human beings are interconnected with all other matter in the universe - this is clearly evident as we breath in 'air' which fills most of space.
Reality as we know it is always changing due to the physical laws of nature, why would it go back on itself?
Hi. I'm Pong and I've traveled through time to greet you now, right now. I use the internet as a time machine. Check my posting date above.
That's about as sci-fi as is possible. But we're constantly in time travel. It takes some time to hear a sound or see an image through the eyes. Nothing truly happens in "real time".
We use "machines" to bend time, one way or the other. Speed up, slow down, skip ahead. I mean practically not theoretically.
Besides having no common definition of time, our definition of what constitutes a human entity is vague, often nearsighted in my opinion. I don't believe "I" require feedback to exist and influence the universe, wherever or whenever "I" happen to be.
Yeah spot on Pong. We are always 'travelling in time' and a bird or fly would perceive time to be moving one hell of alot faster than us. This shows that 'time' is the perception of the motion of the phyiscal we observe.
The thing in question is is it possible for man to create a machine which could stop and start 'time', giving human beings the ability to relocate in events already past and yet to develop.
This machine is not possible.
I do think you could bring back the dead to live since they where alive in the time you will travel
to, meaning back then they weren't dead actually. Hence you don't not have to bring them back
to live. They are still alive back then.
But what if you would like to travel to your own future? You know, you had to be there twice. But
you couldn't be there, not only ones, cuz you left time at the moment your travel begins.
Because it can.
Read my first post on a time machine again please.
It is absolutly obvious you have not understood the basic truths.
Physical reality or nature would have to re-create the events that happened in the past and therefore those events would be of new substance and physics.
Or reality would have to reverse its self in its physical structure and composition. It would have to reverse the physical changes that happened in absolute perfect harmony if it were to re-create exactly what was.
And even if nature did re-create the past.. we wouldnt have any exact record of what the event was when it actually happened the first time to refer this new observation of it to - as the past can never be fully captured once it has gone.. Only memories, photographs, written document remains of what physical reality was in the so called 'past'.
The past and future do not exist in the present therefore they are no longer of real substance, the 'future' does not exist neither does the 'past'.
All objects even the seemingly solid are still perishable and always under change. No thing man has recorded is unable to perish, change or move on some physical basis.
Please refer to my first post as it explains better.
You mean it is absolutely obvious that I do not agree with what you consider to be the basic truths. Your 'basic truths' do not coincide with the 'truths' generally accepted by the community of physics experts. If it is OK with you I shall tend to follow their interpretation of 'truth' -which is based upon an in depth understanding of the physics, both experimental and theoretical - rather than your view of the basic truths, which seem to be based upon speculation alone.
Would it be possible to contain time travel, I mean if we didn't wouldn't the universe also go back in time?
I have travelled in time
I do this randomly with my mind.
My mind speculates upon the future and it is revealed and similarly re the past of others.
The mind is thus very much capable of time travel, not sure how this works though.
Something to do perhaps with the fact that time does not occur as a series of unfolding events as we perceive them but as an expolsion of action that we merely interpret as sequential.
Consider a video
The video has all the info on it, but we only experience it frame at a time.
Perhaps there remains a section of the mind that can view the whole thing in an instant.
Well send in the people who can prove the words below wrong because i am yet to discover anyone who has shown any argument that the past can be re visited in its entirity as it was. This whole concept of a machine squeezing into past events as if they are still happening is to be abrupt.. NOT POSSIBLE - as the events we observe to be are no longer real once they are changed.. and matter is always changing..
Please send someone who can give a decent argument to the below.
'Physical reality', 'nature' or 'matter' would have to re-create the events that it did in the 'past' and therefore those events would be of new substance and physics.
Or, reality/matter would have to reverse itself in its physical structure and composition, it would have to reverse the physical changes that it underwent in absolute perfect harmony if it were to re-create exactly what was.
Do you understand that? If you do then you understand truth. To travel to events which have already been (which is the purpose of a time machine) you would have to create the events again and therefore they would be a different manifestation of matter.
What has gone is no longer existent therefore it is impossible to experience them again.
This is true.
The past and future do not exist in the present and therefore are unreal.
The 'past' is only memories!!!
Would you care to prove that? Would you care to prove that all events are not occuring simultaneously and that time is more than just a matter of false perspective?
Of course asking for such proof is as pointless as your request for 'sending in people who can argue with the words'. You have a view of the character of time. It is a view shared by some individuals in the past and the present. It is also at odds with alternative views of time held just as firmly by other individuals.
You are expressing an opinion, not a fact. And you are experessing an opinion that is at odds with the consensus interpretation of relatitivity theory. Now I know the fact that it is a consensus view does not make it right, but it sure as heck obviates the need to refute your opinion on the matter.
The machine would not be something we 'sit' in, it would be in the form of electrodes stimulating parts of our brains.
We could view the future and past but not be present in either. Thus we would not alter them and there would be no paradox's. That is unless once we have 'seen' the future, we endeavor to alter it.
I would suggest (based on my own experience of this) that we can alter it very little, as our 'vision' does not give an accurate representation of time, so one could not be sure when the event was to occur.
Additionally, there could be numerous alternate futures so altering one may just change your course to the other.
The reality we know is before your senses. As we can only experience it from a human point of view with the 5 senses we will work from that...
Matter/Reality is always changing - This is a truth to our perception.
Theoryofrelativity said - ''The machine would not be something we 'sit' in, it would be in the form of electrodes stimulating parts of our brains.''
How can we observe the every change in truth which has come to pass? - through one individual brain which have only observed a very finite ammount of 'past' reality... Apart from that it is unsupported in this forum and in your post, it is an argument which no one has enough evidence or information to consider here.
Ophiolite said - ''Would you care to prove that? Would you care to prove that all events are not occuring simultaneously and that time is more than just a matter of false perspective?''
You wrote all that not me.
You have quoted me then interpreated it in a different manner then built your following argument upon that of which is your own creation and muddle of words which was orginally mine but in a different context. I shall show what i mean by this in the following.
DLROW WROTE - Reality/matter would have to reverse itself in its physical structure and composition, it would have to reverse the physical changes that it underwent in absolute perfect harmony if it were to re-create exactly what was.
Do you understand that? If you do then you understand truth. To travel to events which have already been (which is the purpose of a time machine) you would have to create the events again and therefore they would be a different manifestation of matter.
You then interperated it in your own words and built upon those words of your own interpretation instead of a direct argument towards the words above. You interpreated the words above as the following which is a mis interpretation:
Ophiolite said - ''Would you care to prove that? Would you care to prove that all events are not occuring simultaneously and that time is more than just a matter of false perspective?''
Who said that events were not occuring simultaneously? They clearly are. This is nothing to do with my point, i dont understand your misunderstanding.
I also agree with you here that 'time' is more than a matter of false perspective, but i did not say that time was a false perspective. Please quote me if i did.
Ophiolite said - ''You have a view of the character of time. It is a view shared by some individuals in the past and the present. It is also at odds with alternative views of time held just as firmly by other individuals. ''
How can you comment on my view of time in such a manner? I do not view time with 'character' in anyway, i totally disagree with using this word to view time or discribe time.
What are 'odds' but an inaccurate judgement.
I dont know about these other individuals and to compare my points when i have not even explained my points of view to them is not acceptable as a fair comparison - especially by you who is inbetween the two arguments.
Please i will try again.. Go get me a piece of the past and bring it to the present. The truth is there is only ever a present if we are to look at things in the view of 'time'.
Essentially the 'past' or physical reality's structure as it were 5 seconds ago must still exist on some physical plain in order for one to re experience it.
In truth it no longer exists in any other form other that what it is at its most developed physical nature - and that is an ever changing point with no actual point as it always progressing and changing.. The moment we start to measure reality is the moment we stop it within our own minds and turn it into the past. But there is no past it is forever changing, there is no measure of reality in the sense of past/future because it only exists now and now and now and now.. and each time i say now i put i stopper on it again. There is no real past only the outcome of it.
July 15th, 2008, 05:24 PM
MotivationHi
i'm new to this forum and this is my first topic so i'm not sure i chose the right section for it
any way
I'v been wondering lately is it possible to make an actual time machine ?
to me that's impossible cus' going back in time, it means like bringing back the dead to life and that's completely unreasonable don't u agree ?
i would really love to hear what u guys think of this
I'll make your time machine but how will you pay me?
What is the point in the above post? How can anyone answer that question without making a pointless form of a low joke out of it and then pretending to laugh or get some form of finite enjoyment...
Although that question is not aimed at me, it is questions like that which face me in everyday life and really annoy me as the person asking it either has another point which they are not bringing to light due to their insecurity of doing so.. or they expect some form of answer or remark back which matchs its low level of hummour..
I dont know what to do with these comments/questions simmillar to the one above as they hold no real foundation as a worth while thing to think about and pursue..
Its just another fill. Another load of idle blabber which mankind seems to be so full of.. and why? why blabber? Apply your minds even if you are wrong, if you are wrong you will learn more than when you are right, but you must be prepared to accept that your wrong and to make a move unto the higher right.
Humiliation is of more value than pride.
Please refer to my last post for the subject at hand.
Dlrow- i agree that time travel probably isnt possible, but your totally disregarding plausible arguments by mathemeticians arguing the opposite. Roger Penrose for one, is an affluent physicist and a beleiver in time travel. You speak to others that they are not arguing there point with proof, but neither are you.
Dont get me wrong, i dont beleive it is practically possible to go backwards in time, but that is not to say that there are real arguments declaring the opposite. Mathematically it is possible, but it depends on a number of assumptions to be proven true or false, and it is this clash that sets hawking and penrose on opposite sides of the time-travel fence resulting in there well known bet.
I agree with you, but saying it is proven to be impossible i definately do not agree with because no-one has proven mathematically that it is not possible.
When people talk about the ability to re experience things a second time actually they speak of experiencing that thing all over again.
I do not need mathematical equations to prove that the past in an illusion, that the present is also an illusion and so is the future.. The whole idea of 'time' is a measurement of reality a reality that is totally immeasurable, as it is ever changing and surpassing our limited experience..
Defination of mathematics: concepts as quantity, structure, space, and change.
No numerical 'proof' or numerical calculations can calculate the experience of reality faster than what we experience when we are not doing any numerical mathematics at all. In others words.. i have come to learn that the mathematics the human brain is naturally doing in order to understand its surroundings far out reaches the limits of numbers and trying to prove this experience of mathematics through numbers..
We quantify, understand structures, gain awareness of space and the changes which occupy and are in motion with that space faster without proof than when we stick things into numbers and try to prove them for other peoples satisfaction and our own..
The past and future are no existent in the ''present'' and are therefore unreal.
I dont need to prove anything to anyone. Its up to you to prove it to yourself.
Look into a wormhole to the past or future, in real time, then tell me the future and past aren't real. But believe what you want to. I'm sure you could take what I said and use it to proove your statement. I'll leave that to you. :wink:The past and future are no existent in the ''present'' and are therefore unreal.
Tell me exactly what a 'worm hole' is first and then i might be able to build something upon it.. But as we both know, no one has studied a worm hole enough (as it does not exist) to understand how matter is changing when matter or light comes into its area, as a worm hole is nothing more than a theory it does not actually exist.
More to the point no one in this forum has the knowledge about where matter goes once 'entered' the hole to reasonably argue against me even if i were to say that the thing you observe as a hole isnt a hole and is rather an illusion of your finite limited sense of sight.
So essentially all people here would be doing is throwing back and forth bits and pieces of observations/studies made by other people/scientists studying the subject of worm holes.
Unless 'WW 2' or '5 seconds ago' (for example) is still happening on a 'past plain of existence', i dont need 'proof' to know in truth that it is impossible to re experience it in the way it actually 100% physically 'was' - as it does not exist.
I totally disagree with the idea of the so called 'past' still being in motion, that is why i totally disagree with any concept of travelling 'back to it', re creating it or experiencing it again.
if the past isnt real how do you explain the quantum time effects, with particles bobbing in and out of existence and time intervals?
I see what your getting at, but this instance in time is not the entirety of reality.
Our sense of sight is limited - even when looking through a microscope, it seems we dont have the correct type of sight to observe what happens to the particle.
So who knows really what is happening to what we observe as a so called seperate discrete 'particle'..
That is besides the point.
The point being..
'Time' is only one's measure of change. An 'instance' is only one's measure of a changing event, a measure which a human being sets, the event or change in itself has no 'time' or 'instances'.
Each so called 'instance' one creates is started where one thinks it should start and the instance finishes where one thinks it should finish.. Take for example this particle they observed, we see it come into existence, at this point we start the 'instance', then it disapears out of existence and we finish the 'instance'. But if we are looking at things in 'instances' - that particle was affected by millions of others 'instances' in the space which surrounds it, most of these changes we do not see, but all them 'instances' were actually physical events connected to the particle's disappearence and reappearence or more specifically in the perception of 'timelessness' it was and is all one event.
Okay there are a couple parts to my theory. first im not talking about a time travel machine, I'm talking about moving faster then light and how doing this would make you travel backward into the past. this is all saying we can theoretically move faster then light through some kind of imaginary dark matter futuristic space ship.
I have a scenario where time travel would take place due to the space ship going faster then light. Now in my theory, two space ships are beside eachother talking with a sun shining light on them. One does a faster then light launch to a distance where it would take about 40 seconds to get to at light speed.
the space ship then turns around and moves left about 50 feet. Now looking back at the other space ship. the light that was reflecting off the ships is about 20 seconds in the past and the light is catchin up to him, and he would see himself talking to the other ship from the past. thus time travel has occured. because in the end time is really just how long something takes to reach our eyes. if u consider everything you see right now current, then that space ship would be current and you would be looking at the past.
this also would work for moving forward in time as if you looked in the other direction you just met the light coming from the other direction faster.
Light is substance which flows upon an object not the object in itself.
You would just be in darkness until the light reached you.
Just because we cannot see the destination does not mean it does not already exist, as i said above; Light is a substance which flows upon an object not the object in itself.
If someone will pay i will make a time machine for them in my free time.
And this is no joke.
thats why i said you move 50 feet to the left
Nitpicking point: we have more than five senses.
A considerable body of informed opinion is utterly against what you have stated. You would not need to recreate this material because it is still in existence in that other time (those other times). You claim to understand the point that all things may exist simultaneously, but your argument above suggests you do not understand it at all.
If the events are occuring simultaneously, then the material involved in those events already exists in the form in which is participating in those events and so it does not need to be recreated. What do you not understand about that?
No I am suggesting that time is a false perspective. That here and past and present are merely pespectives on an over reaching continuum of space and time where everything is always happening and we simply see it in a linear progression - a false perspective.
Then I assume that English is not your first language. Everything has attributes: definable, describable features, or characteristics. i.e. it has a character. Are you trying to tell me that time has no such features?
[quote="Dlrow"]What are 'odds' but an inaccurate judgement.
quote]Again, you seem to be having language problems. 'At odds with' means 'in disagreement over'. It has nothing to do wih probability.
Basically that is silly. The established view of the majority of scientists who have considered this issue is that time travel is possible. They have based this upon serious consideration of currently accepted theories. If you wish to state the opposite of these experts, you are free to do so, but don't expect many thoughtful people to share your view.
Unsubstanstiated opinion.
Unsubstantiated opinion.
Unsubstantiated opinion.
This is not science.
This is not philosophy.
This is unsubstantiated opinion.
Continue to pick n quote at my words and opinions.
Bring forth the argument of the people who state that the 'past' is still in occurence, with more than the statement in itself - and in your own words.. Then we shall debate it further.. until then, there is no evidence or reasonable change to witness that shows the 'past' does exist.
| « Natural Metaphors: Metaphor Resides in Thought as Well as Wo | Science States Meaning while Art Expresses Meaning » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
