Khôr’nagan Posted September 21, 2003 Posted September 21, 2003 I have absolutely no idea what you just said. :shrug:
alt_f13 Posted September 22, 2003 Posted September 22, 2003 If you were to travel back in time, would you not be travelling back into yourself, or would spacetime be distorted for all points in time in that area of space? Also, if you were to slow your travel through time, would you be creating a pocket in spacetime that was moving differently from everything else? Then the universe might expand away from you and you would be jettisoned out into space (or rather remain stationary as the Earth moved away from you)!
Sayonara Posted September 22, 2003 Posted September 22, 2003 The idea that travel in time would somehow include a corresponding yet arbitrary movement in space (normally repositioning in accordance with the position and orientation of the planet) is the most convincing flaw in cinematic time travel. We really can't say "flux capacitors won't ever be a component in time machines" but we can certainly say "if you travel ahead in time by one day you should probably wear a spacesuit."
Skye Posted September 22, 2003 Posted September 22, 2003 Science probably wouldn't all fall down if something basic like atoms were found to not exist. We don't know they exist, the atomic theory is really just something that lets us conceptualise the way the universe appears to behave. If the universe continues to act the way it did to justify the atomic theory then the models we have built on it wouldn't be any less valid than they are today, untill something better came along.
JaKiri Posted September 22, 2003 Posted September 22, 2003 Sayonara³ said in post #103 :The idea that travel in time would somehow include a corresponding yet arbitrary movement in space (normally repositioning in accordance with the position and orientation of the planet) is the most convincing flaw in cinematic time travel. We really can't say flux capacitors won't ever be a component in time machines but we can certainly say if you travel ahead in time by one day you should probably wear a spacesuit. All rest frames are equally valid.
Sayonara Posted September 22, 2003 Posted September 22, 2003 MrL_JaKiri said in post #105 :All rest frames are equally valid. Really?
aman Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 Its hard to imagine the frame of the entire universe adjusting to my time machines coordinates. The frame seen by our conscience mind shouldn't have any effect on the destination. Physics would have to move us distances. Two time machines, one on land and one on a moving ship both go back through time 1 week. I can see the land travel explained by your same rest frames but the ship would be a lot harder to appear on in the past because it moved which goes back to the fact the Earth moved and the land rest frames must be different also. At least that's how I see it. Just aman
Sayonara Posted September 23, 2003 Posted September 23, 2003 I'm not going to assume he means what you think he means aman
aman Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 I understood it as rest frames are the same relative to time only to each single observer. I don't know of any other case except if there are no observers maybe. Maybe? Just aman
NavajoEverclear Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 about us not having physical evidence of atoms working the way we teach they do---- i knew this but now i'm wondering to what extent is atomic structures just a guess? Atoms sound reasonable to me but what about quarks? Was there some super complex math involved to theorize them, or did somebody just say it could work this way, or a little of both? And what about all those other particles i've heard about but dont care to assimilate into my knowledge---- how did we decide they exist?
JaKiri Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 They were theorised, and they do exist. Anyone saying 'but there's no evidence for quantum theory!' is totally wrong; the pc you're working on right now uses quantum theory, we've seen the relivent particles in accelerators, and so on.
Sayonara Posted September 24, 2003 Posted September 24, 2003 aman said in post #109 :I understood it as rest frames are the same relative to time only to each single observer. I don't know of any other case except if there are no observers maybe. Maybe? Just aman I know, but taking one phrase regarding physics and just assuming I know what it means in the presence of a physicist seems like a bit of a silly thing to do, so I'm not going to do that.
aman Posted September 25, 2003 Posted September 25, 2003 Sometimes my 2 cents is only worth 2 cents. Back in physics in the 70's I used to feel awkward because I was the only student in the class who didn't get what the teacher was trying to point out and I usually stopped the class long enough to let everyone know it. I'm harmless and try not to offend anybody with my ignorance, but it seems I've been tasked to share it sometimes. Thanks for clarifiying Saya. Just aman
JaKiri Posted September 25, 2003 Posted September 25, 2003 Just to clarify what I said... There is a trouble with either not moving or moving. The trouble with not moving is that, due to the equality of all rest frames, it will not be stationary relative to all of them. The trouble with moving is it implies that there is a form of absolute positioning. In (properly) theorised time machines, this problem is gotten around by having the time machine stay stationary and only things in it move. This means that things only need to stay stationary relative to the time machine, but also has the drawback of only letting you go back/forward in time from the points at which the time machine is built to the time it is destroyed.
Sayonara Posted September 25, 2003 Posted September 25, 2003 I don't see how that prevents Marty McFly from clambering out of his Delorean and dying a horrible death in the cold of space. Nor does it excuse time travel involving a machine that does not "move with" the traveller, á la "Terminator".
JaKiri Posted September 26, 2003 Posted September 26, 2003 The fact that they can't, in all likelihood, exist kind of stops it.
alt_f13 Posted September 26, 2003 Posted September 26, 2003 Well, if Terminator can warp through time, they probably have the ability to warp through space as well. It could have been calculated. But if we're going to discuss theatrical/scientific inacuracies I think Star Trek should be mentioned. I am starting a thread in classical mechanics about it, for those interested. BTW, read the whole post before you let fly the fruit... sound in space just might be explainable. *Wince*
Kaezon Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 We'll my idea is that the sructure of the 4th dimention (in this I am assuming that the 4th dimention is time) is simalar to the 1st dimention in that it is an infanently long line consisting of an infanint number of points, each of these points are the third dimention, each of these are like frames in a movie but the frame rate is infinantly greater. Each of these frames has it's own uniqe "frequency" in quantum energy so as the frames pass a specific aria in the frequency canges on an infintesimal scale. Thus all you need to do to go backward of forward in time all you need to do is change your quantum frequency.
aman Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 When we time travel into the future near the spead of light and four years pass on board ship while 300 pass on Earth, the ship returning to Earth will have to meet the Earth where it will be in 300 years even though only four passed on board ship. It seems the same rule should apply to the past if there was such a thing as the technology to travel back. Just aman
Sayonara Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 Kaezon, trying to explain these things by chucking the word "quantum" about is a reallllly bad idea when you're surrounded by physicists. Trust me
Sayonara Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 Because they know what it means and how it applies. :uhh:
aman Posted October 9, 2003 Posted October 9, 2003 I heard if you put preparation H on a quantum, it takes the itch away. You have to travel quite a ways from our solar system to put up a base one light week away. If we develop a communications system based on instantaneous electron spin change, then the people on the base would be talking in real time to people a week in the past on Earth. If you had a worm hole to jump back to Earth you would arrive a week befor the message was sent. Just aman
Kaezon Posted October 9, 2003 Posted October 9, 2003 You mean to say no one here knows the quantum theory?!?
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