Time travlling

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:27 pm

Time is relative - to where you are now in Time/Space (not physically). The experiment with the two atomic clocks didn't prove time travel, they only showed that it was possible to have an effect on what was at that point - it was relative to the aircraft positions at a moment in time which is an arbitary point in space (not outer space - it is time/space) at any given instant. Comparing the two clocks at the end of the experiment only showed there were differences between the two arbitary points, which supported that the theory of relativity was true (not executed).

The same is true for putting someone in a space craft travelling for 20 years near the speed of light then returning, its relative to what conditions were at the moment of departure, and what is at the moment of return, the difference between the two is what we would refer to as time. Of course there is going to be a difference under those conditions only because the constant was being used for the person in the space craft and not for the earth. Its the same thing as the sun example, we see the effect of what has happend (space craft leaving and returning). If it were true time travel the space craft would have left and returned at the same instant because the departure and arrival were both relative to the same arbitary point in space (time/space) which was the point in time/space where the spacecraft reversed direction and headed back to earth.

Is time travel possible? Yes. it is, its as possible as anything else. The execution of time travel consists of overcoming the physical limitations and the laws of physics. One of these laws of physics is tied up in the theory of relativity which tells us as something approaches the speed of light its mass changes, it becomes more spread out, like the light from the sun, until the point where it becomes pure energy. So, is time travel possible? Its possible, but is it practical? No it will not be practical because to do so would mean matching or exceeding the speed of light and becoming nothing but energy which would mean that when we arrived at our destination in time, anyone observing our arrival would see just what we see now from the sun - light (energy) that was already old by what ever the amount of interval it traveled. In other words, true time travel would not be practically possible because we could never arrive at our destination at the moment of the event, because...(come on class, you know this one) 'cause...energy can only travel at a maximun speed which is the speed of light (constant) which is the fastest anything can travel, and since the constant can't exceed its self we can never arrive at the moment of the event.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:31 pm

SFSxOI wrote: Is time travel possible? Yes. it is, its as possible as anything else. The execution of time travel consists of overcoming the physical limitations and the laws of physics. One of these laws of physics is tied up in the theory of relativity which tells us as something approaches the speed of light its mass changes, it becomes more spread out, like the light from the sun, until the point where it becomes pure energy. So, is time travel possible? Its possible, but is it practical? No it will not be practical because to do so would mean matching or exceeding the speed of light and becoming nothing but energy which would mean that when we arrived at our destination in time, anyone observing our arrival would see just what we see now from the sun - light (energy) that was already old by what ever the amount of interval it traveled. In other words, true time travel would not be practically possible because we could never arrive at our destination at the moment of the event.

I am nearly convinced, that if you could make time going slower for a single person, more time would pass to others hence it would be like future. but again :/

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:37 pm

thefool wrote:
SFSxOI wrote: Is time travel possible? Yes. it is, its as possible as anything else. The execution of time travel consists of overcoming the physical limitations and the laws of physics. One of these laws of physics is tied up in the theory of relativity which tells us as something approaches the speed of light its mass changes, it becomes more spread out, like the light from the sun, until the point where it becomes pure energy. So, is time travel possible? Its possible, but is it practical? No it will not be practical because to do so would mean matching or exceeding the speed of light and becoming nothing but energy which would mean that when we arrived at our destination in time, anyone observing our arrival would see just what we see now from the sun - light (energy) that was already old by what ever the amount of interval it traveled. In other words, true time travel would not be practically possible because we could never arrive at our destination at the moment of the event.
I am nearly convinced, that if you could make time going slower for a single person, more time would pass to others hence it would be like future. but again :/

It might be what we could call time travel in a generic sense, but it would be nothing but the same as seeing the light from the sun arrive, the event would be younger because its already occured and the light arrival would be older, the interval between the two we refer to as (the passage of) time. The same generic reference could be said for coma patients when they wake up

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:40 pm

Exactly!
But of course it would be the same as seing the sun, but as we define time after what we do/see, it would be a kind of time travelling. At least after what i see

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:44 pm

thefool wrote:Exactly!
But of course it would be the same as seing the sun, but as we define time after what we do/see, it would be a kind of time travelling. At least after what i see

Well, yes, but do you want the apperance of time travel or actual time travel? What your describing is the apperance of time travel (actually the effect of time passage), not actual time travel.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:47 pm

Ford Prefect wrote:time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:01 pm

SFSxOI wrote:
thefool wrote:Exactly!
But of course it would be the same as seing the sun, but as we define time after what we do/see, it would be a kind of time travelling. At least after what i see
Well, yes, but do you want the apperance of time travel or actual time travel? What your describing is the apperance of time travel (actually the effect of time passage), not actual time travel.

How would you define actual time travel? I think that the apperance of time travel is the same as time travel.

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:17 pm

thefool wrote:
SFSxOI wrote:
thefool wrote:Exactly!
But of course it would be the same as seing the sun, but as we define time after what we do/see, it would be a kind of time travelling. At least after what i see
Well, yes, but do you want the apperance of time travel or actual time travel? What your describing is the apperance of time travel (actually the effect of time passage), not actual time travel.
How would you define actual time travel? I think that the apperance of time travel is the same as time travel.

The apperance of time travel is what we would see after the effect has occured and applied our interpetation to what happened. True time travel would emprically mean the occurance and effect would happen at the same instance (we would arrive at our destination at the instance of the event). The closest analogy I can think of right now (need more coffee, its early) would be a magic trick, it gives the apperance of something happening when it did not emprically happen, e.g...the rabbit did not actually vanish. Where as, if the rabbit actually vanished it would be imperical that the magic was real.

Kaeru actually posted the example above, if he realized it or not. Our concept of time is an illusion, its tricks we play with our interpetation of what happened (the effect) relative to what occured (the event). So in the end, anything we observe in reference to time travel and have to apply an interpetation to is not actual time travel, where as if it is actual time travel there would be no interpetation needed because it would just emprically be.

srod · Post by **srod** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:28 pm

Now, temporal prime directives aside; don't you think that if time travel were possible, some clot from the future would have travelled back and have sorted out this right royal mess we call civilisation?

In fact, I've just left a note for my great great great great...... grandchildren to fly back in time (assuming it is possible) and leave me some winning lottery numbers - the promise being that I will leave my entire estate to be passed through the generations to them when I die.

I'm waiting......

Come on, I've just ordered a brand new Mercedes on the strength of this plan of mine!

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:28 pm

Which is why i believe we can't really travel in time, only "apperent"

SFSxOI · Post by **SFSxOI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:29 pm

thefool wrote:Which is why i believe we can't really travel in time, only "apperent"

I got a neat coin trick....wanna see it?

Maybe Mr. Peabody will let you use the wayback machine.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:30 pm

SFSxOI wrote:
thefool wrote:Which is why i believe we can't really travel in time, only "apperent"
I got a neat coin trick....wanna see it?

Yeah why not hehe

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:42 pm

in my theory possibility is another dimension orthogonal to time.
(as I already said but noone seems to read my post...)

that means, that the universe is a complex accumulation of every moment and every possibility.
when one makes a dicision, the path of reality is split and both decisions are taken leading to different paths of reality.
our conscience only percieves one single path of reality.

according to that, if I travel back in time and change something, I just would ajust my conscience to another path of reality and when I go back to future, a new future according to that other path is where I get to.
to the people I leave in the old path I would never have left, because their reality path needs to be unchanged.
to apply a change and let anyone left recocnize the change is simply impossible, because the moment he lives in is a derivate of an unchanged past.

also, the change I apply does not change anything in the universe, it just makes me switch to another branch of reality that parted from my destination path a long time ago....

so.. did I ever travel in time or did I just switch something?

...and what is that huge yellow spaceship I glance in the corner of my eyes but that is just not there when I turn to look....?

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:56 pm

hehe
yeah well, its a good theory.

Psychophanta · Post by **Psychophanta** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:57 pm

Hi all guys, i see this is a matter of importance for your minds (must be at least you are death).

This http://www.borisvolfson.com/index.html is for sure interesting too.
And apart you believe it or not, i in my current status of knowledge, the principle (based on the fact that a variation of magnetic field over a superconductor material modifies the local gravity and so then the local spacetime geodesic lines near the superconductor) is a true, it is not a hoax.

Probably you could find interesting to take a look to that web and mostly search more info about how that principle works.

http://www.borisvolfson.com/spaceship.html <- is nice to see quickly the idea because it show spacetime can be in higher or lower "pressure".

I insist this is not a theory, but a fact.