fafalone Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Nothing is impossible; we just haven't figured out how to do it yet. 10000 years ago even the most enlightened scholars would have said travelling to the moon would never be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 10000 years ago writing in one language across several continents wouldn't have been thought possible...HECK several continents wouldn't have been thought possible! however, I think it would be in the human races' best interest to not study too far into time travel, too much could go wrong for such a little gain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baigligan Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by MajinVegeta reverse time? Do you mean go back in time? Well, that's just impossible. (that is, if someone can get the positive energy out of a finite region of space....) ofcourse its impossible.time is human imagination to compare pocess in our world.its necessery for mathematical operations related with motion.for animals there no such thing time.to reverse time mean to reverse all prscess in the universe.clock is just gadget with 2 arrows spining around the day. EXCUSE ME FOR POOR ENGLISH.I STILL LEARN IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajinVegeta Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by baigligan ofcourse its impossible.time is human imagination to compare pocess in our world.its necessery for mathematical operations related with motion.for animals there no such thing time.to reverse time mean to reverse all prscess in the universe.clock is just gadget with 2 arrows spining around the day. EXCUSE ME FOR POOR ENGLISH.I STILL LEARN IT. Actually, u shouldn't have brought "clock" in to this topic. Why? Because its misleading. clocks are just artificial things that measure time relative to an specific area on a planet, Earth. I know this might be self contradictory, but what would good ol' Albert say about this? :spam: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 hed probably saying 'Oi you, muppet, thats isnt a bloody universal instrument for measuring time as it doesnt apply in all situations due to its simplistic mechanical nature.' Thats assuming hes in a somewhat irate mood at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Clocks are accurate, but time is relative. So a clock is accurate in measuring the passage of time exactly where it is. Take the GPS satellites; they're continuously corrected for the consequences of relativity to maintime synchronization with atomic clocks on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Isn't time cause and effect? I mean Einstein theory wouldn't work unless time was cause and effect. The whole point is the curved geometry under gravity and under motion is the increased length between two points. So things like the future and the past aren't real dimensions. Without something happening there is no time, why time can be altered by other means other than just motion or gravity. If you freeze someone or something for instance you've slowed reactions (cause and effect) which is time. I think a lot of people view time as a flow or even a dimension, why there are notions of time travel. No matter how much mathematics you use to prove GR allows time travel the error is the improper use of time as a spatial dimension. Remember time is a reaction, cause and effect, not a line where by one can travel along like a dimension. ET;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Originally posted by ET Isn't time cause and effect? I mean Einstein theory wouldn't work unless time was cause and effect. The whole point is the curved geometry under gravity and under motion is the increased length between two points right...hehe I still have to learn alot about this. Originally posted by ET If you freeze someone or something for instance you've slowed reactions (cause and effect) which is time. Like Cryogenics? Originally posted by ET If you freeze someone or something for instance you've slowed reactions (cause and effect) which is time. I think a lot of people view time as a flow or even a dimension, why there are notions of time travel. That's true; but only in one frame of reference. Relative to everyone else, times flows []inormally[/i]. Originally posted by ET No matter how much mathematics you use to prove GR allows time travel the error is the improper use of time as a spatial dimension. Remember time is a reaction, cause and effect, not a line where by one can travel along like a dimension. ET;) So what does the math tell us? Or is the math wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baigligan Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 So what does the math tell us? Or is the math wrong? [/b] there are some gaps between inqantium mechanic and modern math.(Steven Hocking -the new Einstein) 1+1 is not always equal 2 in world of qantium mech.also there i can turn subgect on 360 degrees but it will not look the same(whatever this mean).it will look the same when is turned on 720 degrees.that i found in his book called SHORT HISTIRY OF TIME aah and by the way.if u are about to read this book notice that at the begining most theories are supported by experiments, but later he depend more and more to unproved theories.i think that even slight mistake can accumulate the big one after using theory several times. so when there isnt experiment support things start to look more like fantastic story than science knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Never Ever EVER Quote Hawking as authority. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baigligan Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Clocks are accurate, but time is relative. So a clock is accurate in measuring the passage of time exactly where it is. Take the GPS satellites; they're continuously corrected for the consequences of relativity to maintime synchronization with atomic clocks on earth. yeah.i agree but medal always have 2-nd side.we can say that "Clocks are accurate, but time is relative" OR we can say that every process is slower into high gravity including clock ticking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by baigligan yeah.i agree but medal always have 2-nd side.we can say that "Clocks are accurate, but time is relative" OR we can say that every process is slower into high gravity including clock ticking. Arent those two statements equivilent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Never Ever EVER Quote Hawking as authority. Haha, he seems pretty knowledgable, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baigligan Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Arent those two statements equivilent? theyr result is equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by blike Haha, he seems pretty knowledgable, why not? "seems" is the word you are looking for. he is blown all out of proportion because he lives in a chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward "seems" is the word you are looking for. he is blown all out of proportion because he lives in a chair. Hawking has made respectable contributions and because of this people want to hear his ideas. That's all they are and shouldn't be quoted as fact. Just aman:nono: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 I don`t deny it, but he is not the god that some make him out to be. there are cleverer people out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Originally posted by aman Hawking has made respectable contributions He's distorted physics out of all recognition in his books, if that counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindOfChaos Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I don't think time travel is really possible. Maybe if we ended up insainly advanced we could reverse all molcular movements and reactions so that time effectivly moves backwards even though time hasn't changed at all just the placement of atoms has changed. Then we could have time travel and then move forwards in time by the way of moving near the speed of light around the planet to actually move forward in time. That I think is the only way of "moving" back in time in theory. Not that this kind of thing would ever be doable or that any one would ever want to do that. Actual time travel I dont think exists because you can not move back in time as it is moving back to a time when atoms and every thing was a certain way and in this way I think time is a illusion. The fact that time is moving forward is not a illusion bacause things can change in differen't ways they just can't change back to the exact way they were before. I may not of made sense or am just repeating what every one here mite already know. Im just seeing if my idea of time is right. Hope i have expained what i mean properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 If one where to physically travel back in time your constituents could not displace your constituents as they where then, due to conservation. aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindOfChaos Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 If one where to physically travel back in time your constituents could not displace your constituents as they where then' date=' due to conservation. aguy2[/quote'] Your saying that if time travel was possible people would not beable to do it because of the atoms that make them selfs would have to change to the states they were in back then? So I could not exist? By the way I posted previously. I wonder if you had the technology to do some thing like that theoritically couldn't you replace my atoms with atoms from some where else that are identical to mine and then send the planet back in time by trying to rewind existance. I think it would be possible if rewinding the existance of some thing as large of a entire solar system was possible. (which I don't think it is) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguy2 Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I think it would be possible if rewinding the existance of some thing as large of a entire solar system was possible. (which I don't think it is) Wouldn't you be just making the same problem bigger. The problem being 1 thing existing 2 times at once. aguy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindOfChaos Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I was refering to getting the particles from a differen't place. As I was talking about only effecting one solar system and having the reason of the universe stay the same. I guess its not really worth thinking about though because I don't think there will ever be a way of rewinding atoms to there past states of years ago and if there was it is unlikely that it would be done any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gisburnuk Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 I agree that time can be distinguished between cause and affect or entropy but wouldn't entropy decrease when travelling near to c? Lets just imagine that person T wants to measure the affect of entropy in his spaceshipe when travelling near to the speed of light, ie 99.9999999 . When his spaceship travels at 99% the speed of light, mr T begins to prepare his two mixtures of gas, one green and one red, mr T states that both the gases would mix together when on earth. He starts his experiment and puts both boxes containing the gases beside one another and then seperates them, what would happen? Would it happen at a normal rate? Would the gases mix when travelling at c? The constancy of light and mass/energy relationship would forbid mr T from moving let alone accelerate to near the speed of c, so I have based this thought experiment as a theoretical one. The question that needs to be brought to mind is that if time dilates and entropy halts in a spaceship at that speed and yet time and entropy exists naturally on earth at that exact moment then wouldnt' time exist without entropy? I will welcome any harsh comments on this but please, I have left my thought experiment as a personal theoretical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Wouldn't you be just making the same problem bigger. The problem being 1 thing existing 2 times at once. aguy2 The principles of conservation must be modified if the element of time travel is introduced, with the result that the objection falls apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now