Physics

**jester22c** · 09-12-2002, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Adisharr
The latest article I read on time travel (think it was pop-sci magazine) said that the current thought is that it is possible but the operators of the 'time machine' would not be able to go back in time any earlier than the creation date of the machine itself. How dull..

Whohoo! I made a time machine a week ago! Now I can go back in time 1 week!

That would definately be a drawback, but I think it would still come in handy

You know those times when you're like "stupid stupid *slaps self in forehead repeatedly* why did I say that" when you're talking to a girl? Just hop in your handy dandy time machine and fix things. Or that test you forgot about till you showed up for class? Yes I can see many benefits... remember groundhog day? great movie

**Adisharr** · 09-12-2002, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by jester22c

That would definately be a drawback, but I think it would still come in handy You know those times when you're like "stupid stupid *slaps self in forehead repeatedly* why did I say that" when you're talking to a girl? Just hop in your handy dandy time machine and fix things. Or that test you forgot about till you showed up for class? Yes I can see many benefits... remember groundhog day? great movie

lol

That was a cool movie

Yeah it would be at least good for making money and trying out pick-up approaches on women

**Remington** · 09-14-2002, 01:03 AM

Hmm considering the laws of thermodynamics, if you were to travel into the future/past aren't you essentially destroying energy in your time and then creating energy in another time. 2 things that are impossible?? Not to mention that it would result in a nuclear fission explosion every time. (I think you can figure out why) Has anyone seen the new movie "the time machine" based on the H.G. Wells story? The central idea in that film (although not the book) is that you cannot change the past/future. The guy's girlfriend keeps dying, I was thinking to myself tho, why didn't he take her in the flower shop with him. oh well.

And the thing with the spaceship and looking at earth from a lightyear away and seeing what happened a year ago.. that isn't time travel, it's just observing the light that bounced off the earth at that time. Plus it's probably impossible the photons would be spread out too far. You'd have take in light in an area of a several parsecs to piece together a coherent image. And this idea has been around for years. zoom 2002 lightyears away and witness the birth of christ!

I consider myself an imaginative person so I'm not ruling out time travel altogether, but I definetly believe it is possible to observe the past, but not the future since it would invariably result in a paradox.

Lastly, the pop-sci theory on how u can only go back to the time the machine was created. I'd argue that if this were in any way true, you would be able to go back to the exact time the workings of such an apparatus were finally conceived, since it would inevitably be built from then.

I really love this stuff, I might have to start a thread and see some people's theories on how to travel faster that light. I absolutely 100% belive that it is possible somehow.

**Gogita** · 09-15-2002, 08:07 PM

Travelling faster than light, in the true sense of the word may be impossible. But many scientist believe that punching a hole through space time may allow the creation of wormholes, these little suckers will allow the crossing of immense distances in an instant. Another way i heard was to bend space time by creating a gravimetric distortion. This is were the wonderful realm of Star Trek is encountered, warp capable ships would merely warp space/time, to close the distance between your location and destination.

**Remington** · 09-16-2002, 10:04 PM

Yes if you look at einstein's theories he proposed that gravity is actually just a distortion of space, so in theory if we could master gravity we could travel indefinetly throughout space, although slower than light because gravity's effects travel at the speed of light. Another theory would be to identify and reproduce the space expanding effects that happened when the universe was first formed, if we could do this then it would take no time at all to lean how to do the opposite, - contract space that is, and then superluminal travel would be possible

**Moridin** · 09-16-2002, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by Gogita
Travelling faster than light, in the true sense of the word may be impossible.

Actually it isn’t traveling faster then light that is impossible, it’s traveling AT the speed of light that’s impossible. This creates a barrier that prevents us from ever accelerating to speeds greater then light, because to ever get faster then light you fist need to get to the speed of light. Theoretically, if an object was created moving faster then the speed of light it could continue to do so with no difficulty.

**Remington** · 09-17-2002, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Moridin

Actually it isn’t traveling faster then light that is impossible, it’s traveling AT the speed of light that’s impossible. This creates a barrier that prevents us from ever accelerating to speeds greater then light, because to ever get faster then light you fist need to get to the speed of light. Theoretically, if an object was created moving faster then the speed of light it could continue to do so with no difficulty.

Yep, they're called tachyons and there is overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that they exist, although no actual proof

But they do exist

**Mancora** · 09-17-2002, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Darkman

I am not joking or anything but do you mean that you're mom suffers from some sort of illusion and makes up conspiracy theories in real life?

Because i have seen that with some people i know, i hope you can answer me because i would like to know you're stand on this.

How i stand on this? what does that matter?

Shes not much of a creator but more of a believer, though i havent heard much this subject lately so maybe she's moved on from that.

**unclescrooge** · 09-20-2002, 03:49 PM

uhm...actually recent evidence indicates that the speed of light is dynamic (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1005114024.htm)

and additional data also points to features that indicate that C is not the universal "speed limit" (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/cyb...43874,00.html?)

but heck...i'm more impressed with the fact that a group in europe has actually made a batch of anti-matter atoms. to me that is very impressive.

**joerg** · 09-20-2002, 05:09 PM

Lets say that we look at the simple law of conservation of matter it states that matter can not be either destroyed or created so waht does this mean? I means that time travle is completely impssoible because by going i nto the past or the future you create additional matter which would in affect alter the entire universe because the balance of matter cwould change ecen by the slightest bit would do something unthinkable. So with that i give an example there is 1000 units in a container which we will call the the time 9-20-2002 12:00 and another container containing 1000 units which we will call 12:01 on the same date so you now take a unit from 12:01 and travle to container 12:00 now 12:00 has 1001 and 12:00 has 999 so what hapens is like airpressure one container implodes and the other explodes essentailly destroying the 2 containers or in times case the univerese itself. keep in mind this is my theory so it is most deefinatly flawed.

**Milo** · 09-22-2002, 05:11 AM

It's not possible to time travel into the past OR future. There is no such thing as Time. Time is a measurement WE created. Aging and decaying is different than time.

Time is simply a unit of measurement to help us understand length of exsistance in anything.

**Moridin** · 09-22-2002, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Milo
It's not possible to time travel into the past OR future. There is no such thing as Time. Time is a measurement WE created. Aging and decaying is different than time.

Time is simply a unit of measurement to help us understand length of exsistance in anything.

If time is just a measurement, what is it measuring?

**Milo** · 09-22-2002, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Moridin

If time is just a measurement, what is it measuring?

The measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues.

Travelling FASTER than light or whatever does not mean you are going faster than time... you are just going faster than light (if it were possible.) I mean when a jet breaks the sound barrier, it is travelling FASTER than sound. In fact the sound is not heard until a moment later but that does not mean he is a certain amount of time advanced into the future? The same is true with light... except instead of just not being able to hear the jet, it would not be able to be seen until moments later (but who could see something travelling that fast anyhow.) That jet would not be a certain amount of time in the future, everything would just be one big blur, but still even when the jet lands nothing was accomplished except a distance travelled. The jet does not enter a new dimension.

**russ_watters** · 09-22-2002, 07:21 PM

and additional data also points to features that indicate that C is not the universal "speed limit"

That first article is interesting. It suggests that maybe the speed of light is a dimension the same as the physical dimentions - as the universe expands, so does the speed of light. That sounds plausible and should be measurable with accurate enough readings taken over a period of years.

The other article is about interference patterns - the intereference pattern is what moves faster than the speed of light. As far as I know, there has never been a particle or photon moving faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is only a barrier to something with MASS.

The anti-matter thing is not at all surprising. Anti-matter is created in a lot of supercollider experiments - the trick is containing it.

Milo, your analogy of a jet and the sound barrier is good, with one caveat - when your speed gets near the speed of light, the rate of the passage of time drops (theoretically at the speed of light it is zero). So you really are doing a version of time travel - but you can only slow or speed up the rate, you can't reverse it. So essentially you get a one way trip in time.

**Milo** · 09-22-2002, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters

That first article is interesting. It suggests that maybe the speed of light is a dimension the same as the physical dimentions - as the universe expands, so does the speed of light. That sounds plausible and should be measurable with accurate enough readings taken over a period of years.

The other article is about interference patterns - the intereference pattern is what moves faster than the speed of light. As far as I know, there has never been a particle or photon moving faster than the speed of light. The speed of light is only a barrier to something with MASS.

The anti-matter thing is not at all surprising. Anti-matter is created in a lot of supercollider experiments - the trick is containing it.

Milo, your analogy of a jet and the sound barrier is good, with one caveat - when your speed gets near the speed of light, the rate of the passage of time drops (theoretically at the speed of light it is zero). So you really are doing a version of time travel - but you can only slow or speed up the rate, you can't reverse it. So essentially you get a one way trip in time.

Even if one were to achieve time travel, no matter how long they remain at that state, when they stop, everything will catch up to them.

Thread: Physics

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions