i dont believe time travel. as soon as you go back in time past when it was created then it would cease to exist. If you were to go in the future it might work then go back to the time you created it. But all that is impossible :P
Originally posted by star50fiveoh
The trick to actually using them is to get them onto your WebSpace so you can get a URL to use in your posts, inside an IMG Tag.
....Now, if we could just get you straightened out on this Life/Death/Alien/Time-Travel/Gay Marriage stuff..............
thanks for the extremely helpful info. been downloading as you suggested. (my searches are not as refined as yours - yet! :) ) guess i need to get me a webpage.
The idea of time travel is pretty complicated and it was ever possible, it would mean that you would never die because it would mean that the past, present, and future have to all be happening at the same time. If that is the case, then you are always alive at some point.
__________________ There are only two truly infinite things, the universe and human stupidity; I am unsure of the former.
-Albert Einstein
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I agree. A very complicated idea. I think given time we'll figure out anything we put our minds to.
All things being equal I think the moment you step out of time you could kill your parents, grandparents etc. You are existing outside the flow of time. As soon as you return I think you would cease to exist.
__________________
John Wilker
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Time Travel will never exist because it does not exist now.
think about it. If time travel gets discovered 50 years from now. Let's say by some miracle the goverment(s) keep it secret for 500 years. Even 2,000 years from now it's going to become public. It' just going to happen. If time travel is proven to be possible in a forwards and backwards direction, then wouldn't we already know about it due to the amount of "tourists" coming from 2,000 years in the future? How could the technology possibly be controlled so that it never get into the hands of the public?
If that was to happen then surely it stands to reason that we would have seen the time travellers. Of all the people from the future that EVER come (came) back here someone would have slipped up and we'd know about it.
We don't know about it.
Not only that, but if the technology was leaked back here, then the person who invented time travel may no longer invent time travel, since it's already invented. Creating a paradox.
Anyway. Time travel forwards via suspended animation or whatever.. Sure... But backwards? I don't think so.
__________________
Always read stuff that will make you look good if you die in the middle of it.
Ah, but all these time paradox problems might not be an issue.
To travel time you'd have to pull yourself out of your timeline. In removing yourself from your timeline you would probably only be able to view moments in time, but not interact with them.
That would ensure continuity of the timeline & remove chances of paradox. Even viewing the future wouldn't be an issue as you'd have to enter your timeline at the same instant you left it, and thus you it would be like you never left. You'd never remember what you saw so you couldn't effect the future. :p
K0 Meson decay and B Class particle decay. Read up on CPT variant experiments at CERN et al.
Time isn't symmetric. There probably isn't anyway to go back in time. And yes, I've read Kip Thorne's work on it - but there's a serious flaw in his model - it's only a time mapping, not time travel.
The good news though... you can go forward in time. Everyone is doing it at at least 1 second per second. :)
wrawls: The problem is that it's very, very rare that something completely unexpected pops up out of no where - and more importantly, any new discovery (and thus model) still has to cover all the stuff we know right now.
When Einstein rewrote the rules of gravity, for example, he couldn't just say 'Newton and Galilleo were wrong' because they weren't. As a result, the Einsteinian model of gravity at low speeds becomes identical to the Newtonian model.
Most of the models we have now are amazingly accurate and complete. Quantum mechanics, for example, even though we KNOW it's not complete, is one of the most successful and accurate and comprehensive models ever built in science. So is relativity - which leads to the problems when you mix the two, since they're pretty much incompatible.
But even if tomorrow someone comes up with a wholly new way of looking at it - that new model will still have to include all of relativity AND all of quantum mechanics and be as accurate and inclusive as both of those - and moreso.
One last note: in science a 'theory' is not just an 'idea'. The word doesn't quite mean what it does in general conversation. A 'hypothesis' is an idea which is a model intended to explain a set of observations. As part of the hypothesis, there must be a way to test and invalidate the hypothesis on failure. Once tested (preferably by many scientists independenly in many places, some hostile to the idea - to eliminate conspiracy and self-delusion), the hypothesis is promoted to 'theory' which means 'a model which has been tested and as far as it goes, is known to be factual. Most people think that's a 'scientific law' but in fact, scientists prefer not to use the term 'law' anymore since it's misleading. The term is generally reserved now for very basic principles which are SO obvious and SO well tested that everyone just admits it's right without question.
As for quarks - the idea of quarks has been around for a long time. Even back in the 1930s there was indication that the big, massive particles didn't behave like solid points or balls of matter. The problem with quarks was that they couldn't get one out on its own. The reason was pretty startling - quarks have a binding force which grows stronger as two quarks are separated. By the time you've put enough energy into a quark pair, you end up with two new quarks and instantly - two pair. But it's imporant to know that all of that came out of the model they had at the time. They couldn't predict the exact cause, but they knew something was wrong.
Still, the proof of the existence of quarks hasn't really changed anything - it just adds more details. Protons and neutrons still are what's in the center of the atom. We just know they aren't made up of one blob of matter each. In the same way nuclear physics didn't change how chemistry worked for the most part.
Of course, it maybe that because it has allready been invented is the reason why it does'nt exist.
Again, this makes no sense but is the point of my argument.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Star50 , in reference to HNelson59, I saw him around the 33rd nuron on the left lobe.
As fo the facts about Quarks et all......as I say don't bring rational thought to time travel. LOL.
Its more fun to do the what if's and the oh yeahs than to get bogged down with facts and figures and above all try never to be right...whats the fun in that. But seriously since I am a big (physically and mentaly) SF reader I read and think a lot about the Time travel issues. It makes for good fun reading and it does give the brain some exercise. Eric Flints, 1632 And follow up 1633 are fun reads. Even good old Heinlien wrote about it in several of his Lazerus Long stories.
What would be the most popular site / time to visit? Now thats a good discusion. Where would the most time travelers bump into each other? Cruicifixon of Jesus? or his birth? The Hindenburg diaster? Or world trade towers? Makes you think don't it.
Originally posted by CloudsMountain So, if I went into the future a few months, finally got my Dell upgrade CD, and then came back, would it cease to exist?
Originally posted by Bowman But you can't go the speed of light due to the fact that as you increase in speed, your mass also increases, so if you went the speed of light (fastest possible speed) you would be infinatly large (larger than the known universe). BAH!
Would you be infinitely large, or infinitely dense ? Are black holes infinitely dense, or just really really dense ???
My head is spinning. Time for another gin & tonic...
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Uber Member
Addicted Member
Addicted Member
Don't confuse me with facts
