| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
if time travel was indeed possible, and you used some machine or whatever to travel back in time, where, in regards to space, would you appear? like if a person is in NYC and uses a time machine to travel back a year ago. Where will he appear? in the same spot in NYC? but that would assume that you appear in the same place, and a year ago, you werent on that spot in space, cuz the earth, solar system, and galaxy have all moved away from that place in space. edit - punctuation | ||
|
NastyMarine
United States1252 Posts
On June 19 2008 12:15 ieatkids5 wrote: i propose a question to be discussed if time travel was indeed possible, and you used some machine or whatever to travel back in time, where, in regards to space, would you appear? like if a person is in NYC and uses a time machine to travel back a year ago. Where will he appear? in the same spot in NYC? but that would assume that you appear in the same place, and a year ago, you werent on that spot in space, cuz the earth, solar system, and galaxy have all moved away from that place in space. edit - punctuation good question. trial and error? And to reiterate what i believe G5 said - in order for time travel to work, the machine has to be 'turned on' and can only be used as far back as the machine was on. So in-theory you would have a safe 'exit' i suppose | ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On June 19 2008 12:12 GeneralStan wrote: Ramen said it best. The complete lack of time travelers from the future seems to indicate that traveling back in time is impossible Or that we simply can't tell them from the rest of us because they have disguised themselves cleverly to fit in. Seriously though until I watched that youtube vid linked I made up my mind on time travel and found that traveling back in time would be impossible but traveling forward in time would not. Then again I really don't find his theory that strong to begin with but its the only time travel theory I've found to even remotely explain how one would travel back in time. | ||
|
RamenStyle
United States1929 Posts
On June 19 2008 12:13 ahole-surprise wrote: Yeah except I said it before him in this very thread. It's ok, you were the original one to post it. You can have all the credit  Both GeneralStan and I are sorry for this. Our bad. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
RamenStyle
United States1929 Posts
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH? I hope you are being sarcastic. | ||
|
berkguyyy
United States151 Posts
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH? Time does exist. That's the premise of pretty much the entire Theory of Relativity. I remember there was an experiment in which we proved the existence of time and space when we proved that it took longer for a light to get to us when passing through a giant mass than it did when there was no mass present. It is because of the space time continuum that we have entropy and energy conservation. I'm no expert but I stayed long enough in my physics class to know that time does exist. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
CapO
United States1615 Posts
On June 19 2008 11:51 RamenStyle wrote: Didn't Stephen Hawking said that time travel didn't exist based solely on the fact that if it did exist, we would be flooded already with time tourists? Like, it would only be possible to not have had contact already with time tourists if we were the more advanced time line of all, that being statistically almost impossible, given there should be infinity time lines or something like that. imagining what you said makes me feel all strange.. it somehow disappoints me that even after millions and billions of years, we'd still have no time travelers... a bit scary.. | ||
|
sigma_x
Australia285 Posts
On June 19 2008 13:01 berkguyyy wrote: Time does exist. That's the premise of pretty much the entire Theory of Relativity. I remember there was an experiment in which we proved the existence of time and space when we proved that it took longer for a light to get to us when passing through a giant mass than it did when there was no mass present. It is because of the space time continuum that we have entropy and energy conservation. I'm no expert but I stayed long enough in my physics class to know that time does exist. No you can't assert that time exists based on science. This is a serious logical fallacy to make. The issue here is the conception of time, and mahini may well be right. This is why its important to look at whether you think time is a flowing medium (that only exists in the now) or whether time is a static medium (with past, present future imprinted and immovable). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series | ||
|
berkguyyy
United States151 Posts
On June 19 2008 13:10 CapO wrote: imagining what you said makes me feel all strange.. it somehow disappoints me that even after millions and billions of years, we'd still have no time travelers... a bit scary.. Well no need to be disappointed yet. I think the problem with time travel (if it exists) is that it needs two time travel machines (one at the destination and another at the current location) to distort space and time for a person to travel through. So as the video said, we cannot expect time travelers to visit us until we've made a viable time machine. | ||
|
._.
1133 Posts
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time Actually he might have a bit of a point there. | ||
|
berkguyyy
United States151 Posts
On June 19 2008 13:12 sigma_x wrote: No you can't assert that time exists based on science. This is a serious logical fallacy to make. The issue here is the conception of time, and mahini may well be right. This is why its important to look at whether you think time is a flowing medium (that only exists in the now) or whether time is a static medium (with past, present future imprinted and immovable). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series I'm not sure I follow you completely but I'll try to answer as best as possible. It is true that we do not fully comprehend time itself and in order to answer your question we would need to know if parallel universes exist. Of course, we have no idea if they do or not. However, that does not take out the fact that time does exist and is intertwined with space and matter. You must also remember that "science" is only concerned with the observable and testable world. And within that observable and testable world we see that time does exist. So in essence, what you consider a "logical fallacy" is not at all a logical fallacy but rather the limitation of science. | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
Addendum: From that website (which I hadn't read before posting, just confirmed what I already believed/knew.. "Time, in this view, is not something that exists apart from the universe. There is no clock ticking outside the cosmos. Most of us tend to think of time the way Newton did: “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without regard to anything external.” But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all. “I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ Which is true. They define the time standards for the globe: Time is defined by the number of clicks of their clocks.” Rovelli, the advocate of a timeless universe, says the NIST timekeepers have it right. Moreover, their point of view is consistent with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. “We never really see time,” he says. “We see only clocks. If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this object is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on. We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time." | ||
|
berkguyyy
United States151 Posts
On June 19 2008 13:20 ._. wrote: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time Actually he might have a bit of a point there. I read that article and there's one thing in there that kinda confuses me. It says that physics as we know would function just as well with time going backwards... But then that would mean the universe would be getting more ordered as a result (because we have reverse entropy) and hence we'd be creating energy without any work breaking the law of conservation of energy. I see what they're trying to get at, but if time were backwards we'd break the 2 most fundamental law of thermodynamics unless I'm misreading that passage. | ||
|
Ozarugold
2716 Posts
| ||
|
greatmeh
Canada1964 Posts
watch the video | ||
|
Luddite
United States2315 Posts
On June 19 2008 14:13 Ozarugold wrote: Isn't there some theory or something that says that it is impossible for an object to be in two different places at the same time? Wouldn't it cause them to cancel each other out, or cause the universe to implode or something? No... you're probably thinking of the pauli exclusion principle which states (basically) that it's impossible to have two identically particles in the SAME place at the same time. Pretty common sense, really. | ||
|
GuYuTe-
United States550 Posts
The future, Conan? ![[image loading]](http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/Photos_4_web/Conan2000.jpg) | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible. We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe. Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system. The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
