1. Post #281

    August 2011
    89 Posts
    Cryogenics seem to be the only reasonable "time travel" to me. The future doesn't exist yet, and the past doesn't exist anymore. But then again, time may work differently, it may not exist at all.

    Mayve every fraction of a moment, every quantum event, is a whole seperate dimension.

  2. Post #282
    Why so Sirius?
    SIRIUS's Avatar
    April 2009
    1,764 Posts
    This needs to be discussed, if not already:
    someone... say something!!!

  3. Post #283
    Gold Member
    Rapist's Avatar
    February 2011
    4,680 Posts
    Doesn't seem like you are too educated on the subject either..
    Was a bit cross at the time, so sorry if I was rude, but I am not, yeah. That's mostly why I don't post here. I'd sound silly.

  4. Post #284
    weed 420 - hi mom - games r 4 nerds - i own - $WAG - *tips fedora* - do u lift?
    Elexar's Avatar
    October 2007
    12,155 Posts
    The future doesn't exist yet, and the past doesn't exist anymore. But then again, time may work differently, it may not exist at all.
    afaik there's some docu about the string theory which covers this but i might be mistaken

  5. Post #285
    Gold Member
    supersoldier58's Avatar
    August 2009
    2,325 Posts
    Would I be stupid to think that a device that can plant you in a timeline while everything else moves forward would theoretically allow you to "Pause" time of sorts? Think of a butterfly net, you get caught in the net while the top part of the net keeps growing upward. Of course everything always sounds better in my head so this might be stupid, but am I wrong?

  6. Post #286
    Why so Sirius?
    SIRIUS's Avatar
    April 2009
    1,764 Posts
    Would I be stupid to think that a device that can plant you in a timeline while everything else moves forward would theoretically allow you to "Pause" time of sorts? Think of a butterfly net, you get caught in the net while the top part of the net keeps growing upward. Of course everything always sounds better in my head so this might be stupid, but am I wrong?
    well, this is assuming time is being created as we experience it

  7. Post #287

    January 2012
    11 Posts
    This needs to be discussed, if not already:
    Why would going faster than light make you go back in time?

  8. Post #288
    Why so Sirius?
    SIRIUS's Avatar
    April 2009
    1,764 Posts
    Why would going faster than light make you go back in time?
    i think it's the same principle that makes time slow down for those going near the speed of light

  9. Post #289
    Summ's Avatar
    November 2010
    118 Posts
    I personally do not think time travel is possible. At least, not back in time.

    Because that would mean the future is already happening in millions of ways and every second would be another dimension...

    This is way over my head.

  10. Post #290

    September 2011
    34 Posts
    I like to think of the theory of a time machine similar to that of a video camera.
    when you turn the video camera on, you can record everything from that point on.
    And when you watch the past events on the camera, it will not show anything from before the time that it was turned on. With the video camera representing the time machine, this is the reason why we haven't seen anyone from the future, because they cant travel back further than the point of the creation of the machine.

  11. Post #291
    Anthropologist
    King of Limbs's Avatar
    July 2007
    769 Posts
    Time is a measurement. So no.

  12. Post #292
    Time is a measurement. So no.
    Wat

    Edited:

    So, because distance is a measurement, I am incapable of moving backward

  13. Post #293
    userman122's Avatar
    March 2010
    903 Posts
    There is no doubt that time travel is possible. We do it all the time.

    EDIT:
    Look: Just traveled 4 seconds in time.

  14. Post #294
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    4 seconds in relation to what?

  15. Post #295
    userman122's Avatar
    March 2010
    903 Posts
    4 seconds in relation to what?
    The time that just passed by. Without moving in time nothing would happen. There is no reason that we cant move faster or slower in time, is it? Why should there be a defined time-moving speed that is static?

  16. Post #296
    The time that just passed by. Without moving in time nothing would happen. There is no reason that we cant move faster or slower in time, is it? Why should there be a defined time-moving speed that is static?
    "We don't know that we can't do it therefore we can" is not sound logic.

  17. Post #297
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    The time that just passed by was 4 seconds. In relation to that time you haven't traveled anywhere.

  18. Post #298
    newbs's Avatar
    December 2007
    634 Posts
    We are time traveling forward as we speak right now.

    Due to general relativity we can experience time slower relative to an outside body if we are moving faster (If you are walking you experience time slower, but on a negligible scale). If you were to crank your walking close and closer to c (in which c is the speed of light) you would experience time slower and slower.

    So to time travel forward (on a quantum scale you are working slower and your surroundings are working faster) you would have to be moving -> c.

  19. Post #299
    Gold Member
    Saber15's Avatar
    February 2005
    4,324 Posts
    Why would going faster than light make you go back in time?
    Why FTL implies time travel.

  20. Post #300
    We are time traveling forward as we speak right now.

    Due to general relativity we can experience time slower relative to an outside body if we are moving faster (If you are walking you experience time slower, but on a negligible scale). If you were to crank your walking close and closer to c (in which c is the speed of light) you would experience time slower and slower.

    So to time travel forward (on a quantum scale you are working slower and your surroundings are working faster) you would have to be moving -> c.
    You don't need general relativity for forward time travel. That can be handled by special relativity. To go backwards, however, you need general.

  21. Post #301
    GetOutOfBox's Avatar
    April 2009
    847 Posts
    Time is a measurement. So no.
    Wat

    Edited:

    So, because distance is a measurement, I am incapable of moving backward
    What he was trying to say is that, in a nutshell, time is not a physical thing, but a representation of changes in a physical system (thermodynamics basically). Time travel relies upon the concept that time is a tangible thing, and that the past is a place (not a memory or record), as is the future. From a basic viewpoint time travel is obviously not possible, however when you get into special relativity and other areas of physics, theoretically it could be. It's all very confusing stuff.

    There is no doubt that time travel is possible. We do it all the time.

    EDIT:
    Look: Just traveled 4 seconds in time.


    (User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - JohnnyMo1))

  22. Post #302
    userman122's Avatar
    March 2010
    903 Posts
    The time is different for all of us. No doubt. Its just so small differences we cant notice.

  23. Post #303
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    What he was trying to say is that, in a nutshell, time is not a physical thing, but a representation of changes in a physical system (thermodynamics basically).
    Time is just as "physical" as space is.

    In matters like this it's best to just forget everything you know by intuition and view time as another dimension.

  24. Post #304
    userman122's Avatar
    March 2010
    903 Posts
    Time is just as "physical" as space is.

    In matters like this it's best to just forget everything you know by intuition and view time as another dimension.
    Agree.

  25. Post #305

    January 2012
    4 Posts
    Time Travel,

    Oh boy does this topic cause debates, it's hard to know if us humans will ever be able to actually travel in time. For me, after watching BTTF, I was puzzled with questions about time travel.

    Before we head into a debate, lets read the wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

    I believe Time Travel is a possibility, but there can be a chance that we will never find out. Or for my life span that is, maybe in the future, but right now its a topic that's still being discovered and debated.
    By Wiki's definition, no its not possible, but by my definition it is in ONE direction, not both. It is possible to go forward in time, which was proven by Einstein. By putting an atomic clock in a satellite, which was matched up with another one of his atomic clocks, moving at high speeds around the Earth, when the clock was retrieved, it was several seconds slower than the one on Earth. This showed that the clock in the satellite aged slower than the one on Earth, proving his thoery that, at speeds close to the speed of light, hundreds of years will go by feeling like seconds to the traveler. You also shrink alot when you go that fast. So traveling into the future? Possible! Traveling to the past? ... Not so much :(

  26. Post #306
    By Wiki's definition, no its not possible, but by my definition it is in ONE direction, not both. It is possible to go forward in time, which was proven by Einstein. By putting an atomic clock in a satellite, which was matched up with another one of his atomic clocks, moving at high speeds around the Earth, when the clock was retrieved, it was several seconds slower than the one on Earth. This showed that the clock in the satellite aged slower than the one on Earth, proving his thoery that, at speeds close to the speed of light, hundreds of years will go by feeling like seconds to the traveler. You also shrink alot when you go that fast. So traveling into the future? Possible! Traveling to the past? ... Not so much :(
    Traveling to the past is possible under the same theory as allows the travel you just talked about.

  27. Post #307
    Gold Member
    CorporalCupCake's Avatar
    October 2010
    596 Posts
    I want to believe it is, but at least at the moment, I think it's still science fiction.

  28. Post #308
    Gold Member
    Kendra's Avatar
    November 2008
    7,200 Posts
    I want to believe it is, but at least at the moment, I think it's still science fiction.
    Assuming we can go faster than light (which is only impossible because of our current understanding of acceleration), it's quite factual when looking at modern physics (which look to be very correct).

  29. Post #309
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    4 seconds in relation to what?
    Four seconds related to ABOUT the rate at which our heart beats.

    If I understand how time works right, those same 4 seconds passed everywhere in Space at the same time just elsewhere, here, everywhere!

    BUT just 4 seconds is a tiny fraction of a considerable fraction of the time that has passed so far to this second.

  30. Post #310
    Rad McCool's Avatar
    August 2009
    3,883 Posts
    What is your point?

  31. Post #311
    If I understand how time works right, those same 4 seconds passed everywhere in Space at the same time just elsewhere, here, everywhere!
    You don't understand how time works.

  32. Post #312

    November 2011
    3 Posts
    It occurs to me, if I ever did make a perfect time machine, I'd go into the past and give it to myself. Thus eliminating the need for me to invent it in the first place. I guess we'll just wait and see...

  33. Post #313
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    You don't understand how time works.
    Don't just pick your favorite line out of three.

    But elaborate then. In a simple manner.

  34. Post #314
    Don't just pick your favorite line out of three.

    But elaborate then. In a simple manner.
    There is no absolute notion of the rate at which time passes. It depends on your reference frame.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introdu...ial_relativity

  35. Post #315
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    There is no absolute notion of the rate at which time passes. It depends on your reference frame.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introdu...ial_relativity
    Oh I see what you mean..

    That's funny as hell! We couldn't possibly tell the rate at which time passes, but yet it is passing all the time, even second by second if you want to see it that way. Or hour by hour, or billion years by billion years.

    So.. what I can tell is that time moves slow, or that there is just simply so much time we could rebuild our civilization like ten times over and over again. Mind-boggling.

  36. Post #316
    That's funny as hell! We couldn't possibly tell the rate at which time passes,
    Sure we can. Use a clock.

  37. Post #317
    Gold Member
    aVoN's Avatar
    December 2005
    2,880 Posts
    It occurs to me, if I ever did make a perfect time machine, I'd go into the past and give it to myself. Thus eliminating the need for me to invent it in the first place. I guess we'll just wait and see...
    The good ol' bootstrap paradox.

  38. Post #318
    RQ
    RQ's Avatar
    February 2012
    6 Posts
    I say it is not possible but you are able to travel to alternate dimension where it is a replica of what it was like in the past of your current dimension.

  39. Post #319
    Gekkosan's Avatar
    October 2010
    5,668 Posts
    Sure we can. Use a clock.
    "There is no absolute notion of the rate at which time passes."

    but alright

  40. Post #320
    "There is no absolute notion of the rate at which time passes."

    but alright
    Right, but there is still a relative notion. You can measure how much time elapses between two frames of reference.