|
Time Travel
|
Posted By:
Penny
Jun 29, 2004
|
is this for real? i came across this site http://www.johntitor.com/ ,i'm not sure what to think about the guy that calls himself john titor..
|
Comments
|
Page 2 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last › |
kaliman_69
in round lake beach
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 | 02:01 PM
Time travel is theoretically possible, however not physically possible. Let me explain, if you are familiar with Einstein's theory of relativity, you know that if two twins are born, one left on earth, and one sent into space to orbit the earth at a faster pace than the earth is rotating, when the twin returns, say in 24 years, the twin returning from space will be considerably younger. This is because time and space are relative, therefore if you are going faster than the revolving planet, you are going to surpass the time limit of 60sec/1min.
consider this second alternative. If it was phyisically possible for mass to travel at 99.9996% the speed of light, and you could build a spaceship out of some wonderful material that would be able to take you in a straight line at this constant speed for a duration of 12 years to reach a place, turn around and at the same constant speed return to earth, according to the mathematical calcualtions of Dr Richard Gott, you would come back to roughly 1000 years ahead of time. again time and space are relative. This is possible theoretically, mathematically proven. Phisically, it is not possible. at least not yet.
the third alternative for all you skeptics and hoax believers lies in the sky. the stars you see at night are glimpses and snapshots happening billions of years ago. light travels at a constant 186,000,000miles/s. that means that, if the sun were to be turned off, it would take aprox. 8 minutes for us to notice.
this is not BS. this is science. or for the religiously inclined, heresy. until now there is nothing to prove that time travel can be done to travel backwards into time. no magnetic capacitors, or gravitational deregulators, or flying De Lorean's can accomplish this feat. It is all balognia.
To all those would be time travelers, pick up a copy of J. Richard Gott's Time Travel in Einstein's Universe. Good read and can be found at your local library in the physics section. not the fiction one. I hope someone will read this and somehow will become more enlightened.
Cheers, IM |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 | 02:31 PM
kaliman_69 incorrectly stated:
"and one sent into space to orbit the earth at a faster pace than the earth is rotating, when the twin returns, say in 24 years, the twin returning from space will be considerably younger. This is because time and space are relative, therefore if you are going faster than the revolving planet, you are going to surpass the time limit of 60sec/1min."
Time dilation has absoloutly NOTHING to do with rotational velocity of the earth. See this link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation.
I hope you will read this and somehow will become enlightened. |
kaliman_69
|
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 | 04:11 PM
Alright. It was an example, nevertheless the concept of my post reamins, time travel is not physically possible. only theoretically possible. I had heard of the twin theory some time ago, so I forgot some things, does this make John Titor's story valid? no. It only makes my story (a second hand account) somewhat invalid.
I still don't know if joesixpack is defending titor or simply wanted to prove me wrong.
I was vague when I wrote "I hope someone will read this and become enlightened."
By "it" I meant the book I was refering to. I would hope you are not searching for enlightnenment from internet posts. |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 | 01:11 AM
kaliman-69, John Titor is obviously a hoax. I was just pointing out you misunderstanding about time dilation. The "somehow become enlightened" crack was just to jerk your chain. |
Michio Kaku
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 09:24 AM
Time travel IS allowed, even by the equations of general relativity. Within those equations, however , it would require a rotating universe. (postulated by Godel) And we do not live in one.
Other methods involving heavy rotating objects COULD drag space-time around enough to make a viable machine. But you would only ever be able to travel back in time to the point at which the machine started to function.
A more viable solution is to create a worm hole.
The main problem (apart from the initial energy required which would be immense.), would be that a form of matter containing 'negative' energy would be required, to prevent the wormhole from collapsing immediately.
This was considered a stopper for years, until astro-physicists discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is actually INCREASING.
This must almost certainly be caused by the presence of matter with the very qualities need to keep a worm hole from collapsing. ie - negative energy, gravity that instead of attracting, repels.
Since then, There is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent a time machine from being made.
Whether mankind can ever harness the necessary energy to do so is another matter.
One idea is to use the energy created by the super giant black holes found at the centre of many galaxies. But we have to get there first of course.
So I wouldnt hold your breath.!!!!!! |
Michio Kaku
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 09:29 AM
We should also note, that at a particle level, time travel COULD be said to be commonplace. Mathematically speaking, a positron IS an electron travelling backward in time.
The direction of time itself is still a mystery.
and predicated on the laws of thermodynamics.
Laws which have never been proved, in any sense whatsoever.
We COULD all be living our lives backwards, from death till birth. But we think not, simply because we remember the future, and have no memory of the past. Thats just something fun to think about though, not meant to be taken seriously.
I could talk for years on this, so I'll shut up instead. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 09:49 AM
I would believe to jumping into another demention of reality before I would believe in time travel. If time travel truley existed, I have a hard time believing life, itself, would be real, because how would life ever complete itself; Your life, my life, it would mean we would never die. (You have to REALLY analyze that last statement) Think about it.
Now, if a person managed to do a portal jump into another reality, another "Alternate" demention of himself to change something, when he got there, it would be different, and any changes one would make would have "NO" effect in this reality.
If a person does manage by some chance to go back into time, I believe he would be somewhat of a ghost, an illusion, wouldn't be real in that time because he truly never existed, and all one would be able to do is "watch". |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 10:58 AM
First off, let me state for the record that I'm not a physicist. BUT, Michio Kaku said:
"Mathematically speaking, a positron IS an electron travelling backward in time"
I'm not sure I agree with that. From what I've read about antimatter, positrons are EXACTLY opposite in charge from electrons (i.e., are just as positively charged as electrons are negative), but differ in mass. It seems that this difference would mean that they are not the same particles moving through time differently.
And secondly, it seems to me that if something were traveling backwards in time we would see it only for the instant that it existed sumultaniously with us. We would be unable to observe it for any length of time.
I could be wrong, this is just my thinking on it.
emit ni kcab levart t'nac uoY |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 12:12 PM
I traveled backwards yesterday & met someone traveling forward - now I have to replace my tail light. |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 02:05 PM
Funny Maegan, 
What kills me is how Kaliman_69 and a couple of others on here speak so definitively about what is and what isn't. Newsflash for you kaliman, Einstein didn't create the universe and therefore like most of us, theorizes about it. Do you understand that word or the fact that MOST of his work is just that..."Theories." Not proven in any physical sense... just theories that will remain un-testable (and therefore remain theories) for at least some period of time. Not that I'm trying to downplay his contributions in the slightest... but just because he theorized something doesn't make it so. Others just as great have been wrong, or only partially right, and his word shouldn't be taken for "gospel" so to speak. You mentioned the religously motivated and how their views were somewhat skewed by their beliefs (or something to that effect) but fail to notice that your views might be just as skewed by your own beliefs (Church of Einstein).
Just a thought... not that I know anything. My opinion is that time is nothing more than a point of reference made up by man to help him understand an increasingly complicated world. (Much like the concept of God) As the world became more understood by mankind they needed a reference to help them understand the concepts of past, present, and future. You will never be able to capture time, bottle or observe it, because it exists but doesn't.!?.???? Call me whacked as I'm sure you will... but don't forget they used to think Albert was a little crocked himself at first. 
My point being that Kaliman_69 and others like him who speak and dismiss so definitively on subjects they've only read theories about, should take a cue from JoeSixpack about how to have meaningful discussion. You can intelligently discuss a subject, be informed about current theories and beliefs, but yet still be open enough to know that NO ONE has the absolute answers on the subject, yet anyways. Therefore any question, or thought, deserves at least to be asked and addressed with dignity... otherwise how will anyone learn? How will you sway them to your side if you're just as close-minded as they are, just for the other side? |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 02:39 PM
YEAH!!!! What he said! |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 03:04 PM
!gnihtyna dear t'nac I won ,tihs hO ...!AAAHEEY !emit ni sdrawkcab gnilevart ma I !!!ti did I |
Kat
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 07:09 PM
Oooh, is that the Michio Kaku? The physicist? If so, I've heard of you
-Kat |
matzusdog
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 11:52 AM
how on EARTH can something be theoretically possible but not physically possible?
The whole point of Faster than light time travel is not, in fact travelling in time. The concept is simple, but little understood. If you could travel faster than light, you could see things that happened before their event horizon. this would be impossible according to Einsteins model of the universe, however if you think of all the things you can see, if you could see something that happened 12 million years ago (like a supernova) you could shoot the light of an event (say the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago) out into space for 32 and a half million years, off a giant mirror (our time travel device), then you could 'see' that event in real time here 32 and a half million years later.
So in the physical sense you are not 'travelling' in time, but merely experiencing your environment over a greater time scale.
Now, I've just read that back and it made NO sense. but I know what I mean.
Anyway, as 'Time' is relative you cannot travel in it. or around it. you can observe it, it can change direction or speed up and slow down, but only ever relative to yourself.
If Time and Space are linked in the way suggested by many eminent Physicysts, a large mass such as a black hole or star can distort space, and therefore the relative time scale. But even then, you cannot alter the time scale of a different mass or area of space, only the area you are currently using as your frame of reference.
<wipes brow> phew. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 12:39 PM
I with matzusdog, and what you wrote did make sense!! You can't be in it but observe it.
This is what I said, kinda similar:
If a person does manage by some chance to go back into time, I believe he would be somewhat of a ghost, an illusion, wouldn't be real in that time because he truly never existed, and all one would be able to do is "watch". |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 02:13 PM
Exactly, you can "observe" the past by this reflection... but it would still be the past. The "point of reference" would still be the present right? That's why I think that traveling faster than light will one day be possible, and that when doing so it won't "transport" you back in time. Yes, you could turn around and observe the light from Earth, from the past, but it would still be the present on Earth as it is to you. Just because the "light" from the present would take an additional 10 years (or whatever) to reach you doesn't change the fact that everyone's (yours and on Earth) "present" point of reference is the same. Just because you're observing the light from 10 years ago on Earth doesn't in fact make it "10 years ago on Earth." Know what I mean? HUH??? Whatever, I'm getting a headache. |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 03:15 PM
I have invented a machine that will allow me to travel backwards in time. I will try it out this afternoon and will post my success (or failure) on this very thread.
Wish me luck |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 03:26 PM
What Joe didn't mention was that very machine is also used in the production of LSD. GOOD LUCK JOE!!! |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 06:28 PM
Stephen,
Do you mean LSD or DSL? They are two completely different things and depending on whether you're traveling forwards or backwards you could be expecting one thing and get quite another. |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 07:02 PM
I knew this named Tempus Fugit, who came from the year 2525. He said that in the future they choose leaders based on the size of their endowments, or however much money they contribute, whichever is bigger. |
|
Page 2 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last › |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
