Doc Who (Jr) Posted May 8, 2005 Author Posted May 8, 2005 neone whose read serach for Schrodingers cat will know wat im talkin bout when i say "nothing is real" those who haven't read it, if ur interested in quantum mechanics or quantum theory u shud it's quite interesting
Doc Who (Jr) Posted May 8, 2005 Author Posted May 8, 2005 btw i spose it is after all impossible, after all you can only follow sound for as long as it has energy to travel newhere right? cos all energy dissipates
5614 Posted May 8, 2005 Posted May 8, 2005 That is not the best possible reasoning but yes it is impossible! And stop posting in multiple posts!
CrimsonEnvy Posted May 10, 2005 Posted May 10, 2005 I think time travel is possible but I dont think we will ever discover it. There are many point to go on, if we ever discover time travel and could actualy do it, someone would have already changed it, wouldent they? Say if someone in the future came back in time, why isnt our society either perfect, or dead? If someone were to come back they could change the slightest thing, and they would probrably be smart (since they just went back in time) they would know what they were doing. If they came back with the intention with stopping a war, they could have stopped the 911 incident, since they would have as much time as they would need to. If they came to start a war they could just have just helped the Cuban Missle Crisis and had someone bomb someone. So either way, they could have either made our society close to perfect, or close to dead, in my opinion. By the way, this is just my idea, i am NOT saying I am right or anything. If any of this dosn't make any sense, or completly wrong tell me where I went wrong so I can understand more. Anyway, I can come up with 3 ligitiment reasons why we never discover time travel. 1) We are destroyed before we can (either by mother nature or each other). 2) Our civilization finally wises up and we become smart (which is highly unlikely). 3) We do figure it out, but our government restricts and outlaws it, but as we all know, there will always be some guy tring to break the law. With that said, he is proprably a criminal, and came back to stop something. For example, he would probrably go back to stop the law from being passed, which if he did, there would be people coming back all the time. This again is just my opinion.
Sayonara Posted May 10, 2005 Posted May 10, 2005 What makes you think that people would only come back in time to stop things from happening? (And why only things that impact America, while we're at it).
MineralMan Posted May 10, 2005 Posted May 10, 2005 *Time travel is a tricky thing... I kind of think it's impossible, because in order to go BACK in time... time would need to be repeating itself constantly. For example: - If you wanted to go back in time and watch the Egyptians build pyramids let's say... the action of them building the pyramids would have be constantly going on over and over again, so that if you were to time travel at ANY given moment, you'd end up in Egypt at a time that it was occuring. It's hard to word, but you get what I mean... if you were going to put yourself into a situation that already occured hundreds of years ago, (or even ONE year ago,) it would have to be replaying itself right now as we speak. Do you get what I'm saying?? LoL it's hard to spit it out, but "replaying itself" was a good way to put it. THIS is why I think time travel doesn't exist... because the people you'd be going back in time to see are deceased - so no matter how fast you travel in a machine, the people in the year you're visiting are no longer physically there... it's crazy lol.
CrimsonEnvy Posted May 10, 2005 Posted May 10, 2005 They were just examples to make things easier. I just chose things that impact America because it was the easiest to use.
Sayonara Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 That wasn't the important part really. What I want to know is, why should we assume any travellers from the future (or even just the "successful" ones) are going to be benevolent, or share the same ideas as us about what is "good" or "bad" for their history?
BlackHole Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 In order to answer correctly we'll first have to understand what time is (something with the ground state of the caesium-133 atom). One second is defined to be exactly 9,192,631,770 cycles of the hyperfine structure transition frequency of caesium-133 atoms.
CrimsonEnvy Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 I think that they would be benevolent because this sort of thing has kind of all ready happened. There will always be someone who screws it up for everybody else. For example, prohibition, we created a law that people couldnt drink in public. This is from my previous statement that if we created a law that we couldnet travel back in time, like in prohibition ther will always be some people who will try to break the law. I know that people still drank during prohibiton becasue they couldent stop the disease of drinking. It is just an example of how men in the past have broken the law, and I dont think they would stop when something as huge as time travel is invented.
MineralMan Posted May 11, 2005 Posted May 11, 2005 I think that OVERALL: - Time travel is better off NOT to exist... if it doesn't. It doesn't matter how smart the man is, or better yet; how KIND the man is we choose to let travel first- because what gives THAT man the right to change the coarse of history for the other billion people in the world?? Changing the slightest things could honestly result in you having a completely new life... because who knows if certain worldly events that were PREVENTED would of led to things like your parents meeting eachother, or even something smaller, like you growing up in a completely different town... again, this could result from changing events where certain taxes were passed, land was purchased, PRESIDENT WAS ASSASSINATED, and so forth... So yeah... I think our everyday reality is a good enough form of traveling through time - forward - until the end of our days. HOWEVER, if we could travel back and change exclusivley events in OUR OWN LIVES, (without affecting a single other soul,) - I beg to differ.
Doc Who (Jr) Posted May 14, 2005 Author Posted May 14, 2005 ok im lost u lost the lot of me the lot of you have lost me
Sayonara Posted May 15, 2005 Posted May 15, 2005 There is nothing really useful in this thread, apart from 5614's post on black holes. I suggest reading through the massive time travel threads that already existed before this one started.
Obnoxious Posted May 15, 2005 Posted May 15, 2005 Jeez, someone's grumpy Anywho, time travel is possible...but you have to be very small, so small you're beneath underneath the planck length limit, in which then, uncertainty breaks relativity and your probability wave will carry you virtually anywhere, anytime
Tristen Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 I was just thinking about how when someone looks through a powerful telescope into the outer reaches of our universe they are really seeing the uneverse as it was ages ago. So why can't we send a powerful telescope far into space and have it send detailed photographs of the earths surface back to us digitally, revealing our planets past, evolution of life, etc. I know this question sounds very niave but I'm not very knowledgable about science and physics.
Tristen Posted May 17, 2005 Posted May 17, 2005 by the way, I realise we're unable to transfer data faster than the speed of light so if x were the amt. of years it took for the light from planet earth to reach the telescope it would take at least x years for us earthlings to recieve this image from the telescope, but if we earthlings were not extinct by then, in x years we could recieve the an image of the earth 2x years ago, and so on right? If you were travelling faster than the speed of sound then you could hear sounds that you'd already heard and that had gone past you because you'd catch them up. Similarly if you went faster than light you'd catch up light that had already gone past you and so you'd see events that had past... I wouldn't think of this as literal time travel, if all your doing is "catching up" with light waves. The very vague understanding I had of it was that if you reach the maximum on the velocity axis (speed of light) you are at 0 on the time axis. If this were the case you wouldn't merely be seeing light from the past, but be in the presence of all physical things.
CrimsonEnvy Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 It sounds logical to me, but the telescope would take a long long time to get out there. By the time it gets where its going and it sends the pictures back, and thats even if it could take pictures because it is so far out and there are objects such as plants and nebula clouds that the telescope would have to see through in order to see earth.
Recommended Posts