EPTTime Travel Theory - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
itzme_petey
United States1400 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On June 19 2008 23:45 berkguyyy wrote: It's not about being philosophical or proving. I told you that in my definition time exists because it can be measured and tested in the realm of science. In my defintion you do not need to actually see time to know that it exists because science has gone far along enough such that they know matter and visible light (only thing we can "see") is a mere fraction of the universe. I asked you to to define your terms (especially existence and concept) because if you don't define exactly where you stand then truthfully you're just running around in circles spewing whole bunch of prove this and prove that. So tell what exactly is your definition of these two terms? Oh wow, all I'm asking you to do is back up your claims. Time doesn't exist as an object. We can't physically pass through it or manipulate it. This is my stance. We may be able to manipulate our understanding of the concept of time but we can never manipulate time itself because it exists only as a concept. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On June 20 2008 05:20 Funchucks wrote: Then it's not time travel, is it? It's sliding to alternative realities which happen to be identical to past or possible future times in your reality. Yeah. Thats how I believe timetravel would work :e | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On June 19 2008 12:07 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: The stupidity in this thread is overwhelming oh god. Did you guys just take grade 11 science and thought you were genius or something? | ||
|
greatmeh
Canada1964 Posts
| ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
| ||
|
PhilGood2DaY
Germany7424 Posts
On June 20 2008 03:20 sanftm00d wrote: infinite time means infinite time, thus it is certain that any decision that can be made will be made: they will decide not to tell us maybe, but an infinite number of years later they will certainly decide to tell us :-) the theory only makes no sense if humansociety is not to exist an infinite time, which cant be discussed... thats just wrong your logic about infinity is full of flaws | ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
BoT, about the OP. It can be argued that once you take the bill from the end of the timeline and try and go back and grab it at a previous time, the first one might dissapear from your pocket. Besides, they would all have the same serial number  | ||
|
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
and they dont wanna tell us time travel is possible b/c they don't want to ruin the surprise  | ||
|
Krohm
Canada1857 Posts
On June 20 2008 11:07 intotherei wrote: what if time travel does exist and the reason we don't see people from the future is because they are invisible or something like that! and they dont wanna tell us time travel is possible b/c they don't want to ruin the surprise Well I think if there was time travelers it would be really controlled. Also Some one from the future would not want to alter the time line. It may prevent them from ever being born. Theres too many problems really. It would be safest to just let things be. People from the future may also carry new viruses and diseases which could really be harmful to our current selves. A good movie that brought up an issue like this was a really old B movie called Apex. It dealt with time travel and how a man from the future accidentally transmitted a deadly virus to people of our current time line. | ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On June 20 2008 11:07 intotherei wrote: what if time travel does exist and the reason we don't see people from the future is because they are invisible or something like that! and they dont wanna tell us time travel is possible b/c they don't want to ruin the surprise Then we'd better slash our throats open with a razor. Preferably Occam's brand. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On June 19 2008 12:07 LetMeBeWithYou wrote: The stupidity in this thread is overwhelming oh god. Did you guys just take grade 11 science and thought you were genius or something? did you just open a tl.net general forum thread and expect better? i think you made the bigger error :O | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 19 2008 10:12 G5 wrote: ohwhich according to some recent study, is very possible I can prove that if the easter rabbit goes visit santa and they pray to god then they can time travel. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
On June 20 2008 05:20 Funchucks wrote: Then it's not time travel, is it? It's sliding to alternative realities which happen to be identical to past or possible future times in your reality. But what if that's the only way to "time travel"? I mean, the idea that we only have one timeline is ridiculous. Even the most elementary book on the subject (A Brief History of Time) explains this. The point we are at has a time cone going both into the future and into the past that is basically every possible combination of events that could have resulted in the current state of the universe and every possible state which can arise from this moment. So, if you don't believe in multiple, "alternative" realities, you don't believe in time travel. Simple as that. If you do, "time travel" is possible, but only in this limited sense. Remember John Titor? | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
On June 19 2008 17:47 berkguyyy wrote: I disagree. Entropy is a spontaneous flow of objects towards messiness. The reason why entropy is increasing is of course due to the flow of time. If that time were reversed, then entropy would start decreasing. Let's take my room for instance. At the beginning it was quite clean but now it is rather dirty. Okay, let's travel back in time and suddenly my room is cleaning itself up. In other words, entropy is spontaneouly decreasing without any change in condition (except for the flow of time) which would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics is an equation that uses delta time (change in time over time) as a variable. Because we observe the universe moving "forward" in time, it tends to positive entropy. If the direction of time is reversed so that the change in time is "negative", the equation states that entropy will also be negative, and thus, more ordered. Mathematically, it is entirely possible. Who's to say that at a certain point, the universe won't spontaneously collapse back in on itself, going "backwards" in time? A quote from wikipedia: Absolute versus Statistical reversibility Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible,[2] it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy. So unlikely, yes; impossible, no. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On June 20 2008 16:34 5HITCOMBO wrote: But what if that's the only way to "time travel"? I mean, the idea that we only have one timeline is ridiculous. Even the most elementary book on the subject (A Brief History of Time) explains this. The point we are at has a time cone going both into the future and into the past that is basically every possible combination of events that could have resulted in the current state of the universe and every possible state which can arise from this moment. So, if you don't believe in multiple, "alternative" realities, you don't believe in time travel. Simple as that. If you do, "time travel" is possible, but only in this limited sense. Remember John Titor? A Brief History of Time is an odd book. It explains some mainstream concepts, and it explains some of Hawking's weird pet theories. It doesn't really tell you which are which. It explains some interesting theories which were being looked into at the time it was written, and it explains some well-proven ideas, and it doesn't really tell you which are which. It's not some Tome of Truth. It's a very speculative book. People who believe in alternate realities are disregarding Occam's Razor. It's good to consider the possibility, but it's hardly something we should assume. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On June 20 2008 17:09 Funchucks wrote: A Brief History of Time is an odd book. It explains some mainstream concepts, and it explains some of Hawking's weird pet theories. It doesn't really tell you which are which. It explains some interesting theories which were being looked into at the time it was written, and it explains some well-proven ideas, and it doesn't really tell you which are which. It's not some Tome of Truth. It's a very speculative book. People who believe in alternate realities are disregarding Occam's Razor. It's good to consider the possibility, but it's hardly something we should assume. Stephen Hawkings has since lectured on the impossibility of a time machine. He has a number of reasonings some very hard to understand. One of his core principles is that Time Travel, is nothing more than motion. It is, as the name suggest "Travel". If you could move the Universe back to where it was 10 seconds ago.. you would have effectively traveled back in time. If you move yourself back to exactly where you were 10 seconds ago. Then the rest of the Universe has traveled back in time relative to you. Time travel, like everything else, is relative. Now consider where the Earth was 10 seconds ago. It was about 300 KM away. So even if you could travel back in time, just that small amount, you would appear in the middle of space. Where you would die an undoubtedly painful death. | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On June 19 2008 10:12 G5 wrote: Hi guys, I was out having a smoke, pondering in my thoughts and started thinking about time travel. Suppose we made a time machine, which according to some recent study, is very possible and people are already making time travel machines which should theoretically work using lasers to bend matter in a circle, creating a "worm hole" which should allow you to go back in time. But theoretically, it will only allow you to go back as far as the time that the machine was turned on. This doesn't conflict with my idea though. So here is my theory, suppose you could go back in time. Now say you have a 100$ bill sitting on a table for a year or so. You pick up the 100$ and then go back in time, with the 100$ in your wallet, to the end of that year when the 100$ bill is sitting on the table. Theoretically, since at that point in time, since you still haven't moved the 100$, it should still be there on the table, with it being in your pocket as well. I figure you could repeat this process, always moving a little bit further back in time to pick up the 100$ bill, basically duplicating it through time travel over and over. Theoretically you would have to move a little bit further back in time because if you return to a time which is later then a previous time you picked up the 100$ bill, it may not be there at all. If this works, it could solve all resource problems. You could do this with Metals, Liquids, Gas, Medicine, basically anything.... And what excites me the most about this theory is that we could duplicate anti-matter particles. We can make anti-matter in labs but to make a handful of them would bankrupt the world. Anti-matter is one of, if not the best sources of energy in the universe that we know of and if you could make 1 anti-matter atom and then duplicate it over and over, we could power the world for virtually nothing and make long distance space travel a very real possibility. Do you think this is plausible? Discuss! Principle of causality. GGNORE. | ||
|
Wonders
Australia753 Posts
| ||
| ||
