NationStates Jolt Archive

Look I know this sounds childish, and even stupid, but just for wasting some time.

The other day I was reading about that it is possible to travel through time, moreover it was confirmed by a mathematical ecuation, you all know the rumors about the military (e.g they have aliens, have underground cities, have Bryan Adams hidden, and all those myths) so i decided to "research" this matter and i came upon a book named: the trojan horse, in which the character who is a soldier that the author interviewed, travels back in time to the time of Jesus and all those things. That made me wonder if it was really possible.

Okay, look around you. Right now.

now...

look around you again. Look!

There you have it, my friend. You have travelled 3 seconds into the future.

That will be 49.95, tax included. Thank-you, come again.

I travel through time at the rate of one second forward for every one second elapsed. Tests with highly sensitive time measurement instruments have proved that austronauts in orbit experience time at a slightly slower rate. Something like 1.000001 seconds pass on earth for every second that passes in orbit.

You can travel forward in time, simply by virtue of moving very fast, but it is impossible to travel back in time.

After finding out im not the only person who can see things before they happen in their dreams ..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433127

I would definately say it's possible although any theory is beyond my comprehension - Looking forward in your dreams is hard to explain.

Love for your friends and family is the only key I have ?


As for going back I have had realistic dreams of the same kind with the same feeling about lives in the past, I know it's rather bizzare and I can never proove it so I don't really pay attention to them.

The question not being asked here...

Is it possible to NOT travel in time?

I doubt that it is physically possible to mess with the fabric of time.

The question not being asked here...

Is it possible to NOT travel in time?


God that hurt my brain LOL :p

Nothing I can recall in the laws of physics prevents it, just makes it very, very, very difficult to achieve.

Bluestrips2']God that hurt my brain LOL :p
I am sorry my child. I must remember that those created in my image still lack my thought capacity.

I am sorry my child. I must remember that those created in my image still lack my thought capacity.


Erm are you trying to get an EGO of ME ??

LooL Sack that ego boiler hes on fire !!!

The question not being asked here...

Is it possible to NOT travel in time?

Sure, as long as you don't mind being part of a singularity (personally, I think I would mind a lot.)

(in Clinton voice,) It all depends on the definition of what time is.

i came upon a book named: the trojan horse, in which the character who is a soldier that the author interviewed, travels back in time to the time of Jesus and all those things. That made me wonder if it was really possible.


Ooh...nice, Caballo de Troya was finally translated into English? That's good to know, now I can recommend it to English only friends. Only problem is, I cant find it on Amazon, where did you get it? Benitez is everything Dan Brown wishes he could be. You realize its fiction though, right?

(in Clinton voice,) It all depends on the definition of what time is.
Don't you mean it depends on my definition of "is," "it," "to," "not," and "in"?

(also in Clinton voice) I never end a sentence in a proposition.*



*spelling intentional

I'm going to have to agree with Dobbsworld, Gymoor II The Return, and Greater Googlia on this one.

Travelling through time is not only not impossible, it is quite easy, and not doing so would, as I understand it, be a violation of the understood model of time and space.

You can't not agree with me.

I have all the answers.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/images/logo.gif

(I even understand when double negatives are appropriate.)

You'd have to define "time". Time might very well not exist as we know it.

The series where you see people traveling back and changing the future are BS btw. (The idea that such a thing is possible is BS)

The series where you see people traveling back and changing the future are BS btw. (The idea that such a thing is possible is BS)
Are you talking about "Back to the Future," with Michael J. Fox, who also starred in many other sci-non-fi films, such as "Teen Wolf," and "Mars Attacks!"?

Look I know this sounds childish, and even stupid, but just for wasting some time.

The other day I was reading about that it is possible to travel through time, moreover it was confirmed by a mathematical ecuation, you all know the rumors about the military (e.g they have aliens, have underground cities, have Bryan Adams hidden, and all those myths) so i decided to "research" this matter and i came upon a book named: the trojan horse, in which the character who is a soldier that the author interviewed, travels back in time to the time of Jesus and all those things. That made me wonder if it was really possible.

Theoretically, yes. supposedly, any object moving faster than the speed of light would be traveling backwards in time. Theoretically, anyway.

If you are truly interested in the possibilities of time travel, though, I recommend you do a Google on "John Titor."

John was a self-proclaimed time-traveler who first appeared on the Internet in November 2000?? (I think) and then disappeared in January of the very next year. No one was ever able to satisfactorily debunk any of his claims of time travel. It makes for some interesting reading, anyway.

Personally, I think it may be possible to travel in time. I haven't ruled it in or out, I just have an open mind on what I consider an interesting topic.

Theoretically, yes. supposedly, any object moving faster than the speed of light would be traveling backwards in time. Theoretically, anyway.

Eh, sort of...not really.

You can't really travel backwards in time...however, if you move faster than the speed of light, then you reach your destination before others observe you there, and your image can not appear at your destination until a point later in time. This basically makes interaction with others impossible after the point in which you've done this sort of time-travel.

Not to mention, once you've done this sort of "time-travel," you can't reverse it by going slower than the speed of light or by traveling backwards at the speed of light. You've permanately seperated your physical self from your visual self.

Are you talking about "Back to the Future," with Michael J. Fox, who also starred in many other sci-non-fi films, such as "Teen Wolf," and "Mars Attacks!"?
I'm talking about a lot of things stranger, now what's a country like you doin' in a forum like this?

Eh, sort of...not really.

You can't really travel backwards in time...however, if you move faster than the speed of light, then you reach your destination before others observe you there, and your image can not appear at your destination until a point later in time. This basically makes interaction with others impossible after the point in which you've done this sort of time-travel.
So can I punch sombody in the nuts even though they cannot see me?

This has, potential.

mmmm time travel......

If one were to use a time machine to travel through time then they would be restricted to goin no further back in time till when the machine itself was built.

And if one were to travel fast enough you could also travel back in time. However the maths proves that the speed required is in the ball park of 600000m/s or twice the speed of light. Now as we know the faster you go the more mass you have. As one begins to approach the speed of light things go a bit pear shaped.

One of the reasons that prevent any object with a mass going at or faster than the speed of light is that the mass is not constant - it increases with velocity and it goes to infinity at the speed of light. So that eventually you need infinite amounts of energy to accelerate infinite mass past the speed of light mark! (and as far as I know we have yet to find an infinite source of energy :-)

We really do not know what would happen to time when an object passes the speed of light. The only thing we have to rely on is the Special Theory of Relativity (Einstein 1905) and according to it time in a moving reference frame (say your space ship) goes slower as compared to a stationary frame (say Earth) the faster you go.

t1=t square root(1-v squared over c squared)

So you see when you start off - at zero speed (0% of speed of light) your time is just regular i.e. the time slowing factor (xt) is equal to 1. As you speed up your time runs slower by the factor shown on the y-axis. As you are approaching 100% of the speed of light your time slows more and more until it is infinitely slowed down. (You should realize that everything slows down including your heart beats, your thoughts, etc.) So for an example if your ship goes at 98% of the speed of light and you take a one year journey, when you return to Earth five years have gone by.

Now say somehow you were able to go faster than the speed of light (i.e. the v in the above equation is now greater than c the speed of light). The equation will then give us a square root of a negative number on the right hand side (which is an imaginary number.) Well I can factor out the imaginary unit number (i or the square root of minus one) and plot the result on the same graph. This region I call Imaginary Time since it is some weird time with an imaginary unit attached to it (so I don't really know what this time means.)

However you see that time in this imaginary region will speed up from infinity to the regular time speed of 1 and continue speeding up. At 140% or higher speed of light, time slowdown factor is less than one, i.e. time will go faster than in the stationary frame! So for an example if your ship goes at 200% of the speed of light and you take a one year journey, when you return to Earth only about 7 months have gone by. However I need to stress again that this is just a crazy thought experiment which produces some weird imaginary time and has no physical meaning.

So can I punch sombody in the nuts even though they cannot see me?

This has, potential.
Uhm, theoritically, I'm not sure (hey, isn't that from a movie?). It's never been tried...and frankly, that's a farking ton of gas money just to punch someone in the nuts and then never be able to really interact with anyone ever again.

--snip--

I'm interested in hearing what kind of background you have in this field...because to me, that sounds a lot like typical sci-fi-movie stuff combined with a little bit of knowledge, but at the same time, you are making some weird claims.

Its a field I enjoy.

Also perhaps you should check out www.physlink.com

Eh, sort of...not really.

You can't really travel backwards in time...however, if you move faster than the speed of light, then you reach your destination before others observe you there, and your image can not appear at your destination until a point later in time. This basically makes interaction with others impossible after the point in which you've done this sort of time-travel.

Not to mention, once you've done this sort of "time-travel," you can't reverse it by going slower than the speed of light or by traveling backwards at the speed of light. You've permanately seperated your physical self from your visual self.

This is completely incorrect.

You can't leave "your visual self" behind.

You'd arrive somewhere faster than your original image, yes. Once you slowed to sub-light speed, light would bounce off you and return to the observer's retina in the normal way.

In this manner, an observer might see 2 of you at the same time. Say you were 5 light-seconds away from an observer and were carrying a huge light. Then say you move at the observer at such a speed that you arrived in a tiny fraction of a second.

The observer would see the light in the sky for 5 seconds while seeing you next to them with the bright light for those same 5 seconds.

Now, what would be seen in that instant you were travvleing boggles the mind. The doppler effect alone on the light is impossible to calculate (at the speed of light, the frequency would rise to infinite, right?), not to mention the effects of acceleration at start and stop.

So you see when you start off - at zero speed (0% of speed of light) your time is just regular i.e. the time slowing factor (xt) is equal to 1. As you speed up your time runs slower by the factor shown on the y-axis. As you are approaching 100% of the speed of light your time slows more and more until it is infinitely slowed down. (You should realize that everything slows down including your heart beats, your thoughts, etc.) So for an example if your ship goes at 98% of the speed of light and you take a one year journey, when you return to Earth five years have gone by.
Understand. I must do this, now:
CREATION IS CUBIC, but
you are educated singularity
stupid by academic bastards.
Greenwich 1 day time is evil.
I know that you possess the
mind to think that there are 4
simultaneous 24 hour days
within a single Earth rotation,
I think that you are just evil.
Can you explain the 4 days
rather than the 1 day taught?
If not, you are truely stupid.
To ignore the 4 days, is evil.

All hail Gene Ray, creator of Timecube.

LOL

Its a field I enjoy.
Unlike grammar.

Also perhaps you should check out www.physlink.com
...sigh.

So basically, we're probably on the same level...

Then would you please explain why time-travel before the creation of a time machine is impossible?
It's fine if you believe that, as there is nothing definitive proving either side of that argument.

Additionally, no matter how fast you go, and no matter how long you travel that fast, you do realize that you'll never end up at a time before your original destination, right? You can't travel to "the past," by going faster than the speed of light...you simply win the race against time and get to the future before everyone else, irregardless, that's still at a point in time after you left, because the trip in itself takes a positive time unit to travel...

And to say that this is proof that travel before a time when a time machine is invented is impossible would be wrong. That's simple proof that you can not travel to any past using any time travel device that capitalizes on the theory of being time to the future.

It's hard to say whether or not human time travel really is possible, as it's difficult to say how time machines will actually work...

Seems like you're the type of person who would've say light is impossible without fire (and even Edison's light bulb = fire)...

Irregardless, anyone who has read the book "Flatland," (and understood it's principles) can easily understand that Time-Travel may very well be a possibility.

If you are truly interested in the possibilities of time travel, though, I recommend you do a Google on "John Titor."

John was a self-proclaimed time-traveler who first appeared on the Internet in November 2000?? (I think) and then disappeared in January of the very next year. No one was ever able to satisfactorily debunk any of his claims of time travel. It makes for some interesting reading, anyway.

It's my understanding that all his most substantial claims have indeed been debunked. The story also had some serious internal consistancy problems. And, finally, it has been suggested that his scenario may have been partly plagiarized from Alas, Babylon, Hyperspace[i], [i]12 Monkeys[i], and one of the GURPS RPG modules (I don't remember exactly which one, but I hink it was [i]Cyberworld.

Here ya go:
general critique (http://www.pantsblazing.com/blog/archives/000031.html)

physics debunked (http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000482)
faked picture debunked (http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=001138)

And finally, one of the most important predictions isn't happening.

Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election.
The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse.

There was not any civil unrest. There haven't been any Waco style events at all since the election, much less one a month. Things have settled down rather than gotten worse. Withgout the US civil war, his whole scenario goes to hell.

Unlike grammar.

-snip-

Seems like you're the type of person who would've say light is impossible without fire (and even Edison's light bulb = fire)...

-snip-

Irregardless, anyone who has read the book "Flatland," (and understood it's principles) can easily understand that Time-Travel may very well be a possibility.

Don't correct someone's grammar if you use the word irregardless. Also, I think replacing, "would've say," with "would've said," is the proper grammatical from.

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

I choose to police the grammar police and no one else. :D

Wasn't there a Time Travellers convention a few months back?

The cute thing is, it's not going to be an annual thing because technically everyone can travel back to that moment and enjoy.

And if one were to travel fast enough you could also travel back in time. However the maths proves that the speed required is in the ball park of 600000m/s or twice the speed of light.

Twice the speed of light is not 600000m/s, I think you mean km/s.


However I need to stress again that this is just a crazy thought experiment which produces some weird imaginary time and has no physical meaning.

Well put.

Different theory on time travel.

It would be possible by manipulating wormholes.

A wormhole connects to points in space. The distance between the two points via the wormhole is less than the distance via a straight line.

If you where to be standing near the wormhole and a clock was placed at your side of the wormhole and the other end of the wormhole (you are able to see both) they would both give the same time. If the other end of the wormhole and the clock were moving at an extremely high rate of speed (lets say 98% the speed of light), time would pass more slowly at that end. If you were to come back five years later, one year would have passed on the otherside, you would be looking four years into the past. You could then travel through the wormhole and come out four years in the past. The main problems with this theory are that a) we do not know how to open our own wornholes, or keep existing ones open and b) it would require alot of energy to accellerate the one end to a high enough speed.

If we were able to do this the problem made famous by Back to the Future could occur: What if someone went back in time and stopped their parents from having you? or more simply: What would happen if an object that travels back in time stops itself from going back in time? No one can figure out what happens.

Also there is the 'thing' from Futurama: What if you went back in time and became your own father (in Fry's case he was his own grandpa)? How would you get your mom pregnant with yourself before you exist?

Different theory on time travel.

It would be possible by manipulating wormholes.

A wormhole connects to points in space. The distance between the two points via the wormhole is less than the distance via a straight line.

If you where to be standing near the wormhole and a clock was placed at your side of the wormhole and the other end of the wormhole (you are able to see both) they would both give the same time. If the other end of the wormhole and the clock were moving at an extremely high rate of speed (lets say 98% the speed of light), time would pass more slowly at that end. If you were to come back five years later, one year would have passed on the otherside, you would be looking four years into the past. You could then travel through the wormhole and come out four years in the past. The main problems with this theory are that a) we do not know how to open our own wornholes, or keep existing ones open and b) it would require alot of energy to accellerate the one end to a high enough speed.

If we were able to do this the problem made famous by Back to the Future could occur: What if someone went back in time and stopped their parents from having you? or more simply: What would happen if an object that travels back in time stops itself from going back in time? No one can figure out what happens.

Also there is the 'thing' from Futurama: What if you went back in time and became your own father (in Fry's case he was his own grandpa)? How would you get your mom pregnant with yourself before you exist?


It's called paradox...something which should not be able to be true, but, then again, might be.

Actually, the worst problem of time travel is not in becoming your own father or mother. There is nothing in becoming your own father or mother that a well-adjusted family can't cope with. The problem, more simply, is one of grammar. For more information on tense formations, consult Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's book of 1,001 tense formations. The Guide skips lightly over the whole thing, pausing only to note that the term "Future Perfect" has been dropped, since it was discovered not to be.

...

I won't be responding to inflamintary remarks.


The correct speed of light is 299,793.1km/s derived in 1951 by Kerr cell shutter method by one Bergstrand.
My earlier guess was off the top of my head and not a figure I typically quote in day to day life.

Physics is a complete package: once you decide to ignore one physical law, you're ignoring them all.

If you are able to travel faster than the speed of light you can travel backwards in time. The theory of relativity only states that you cannot travel AT the speed of light not beyond it. To do this you will have to discover a way to transverse the speed of about 186,282 miles/sec without ever being at that speed. (Imagine going from 186,281mps to 186,283mps without doing 186,282m/sec and that's what you have to be able to do.)
Good luck doing it. If you can you'll be famous.

Another way is to take an extension cord. Cut off the female end. Shave off the plastic on that end. Split the wire into 2 pieces. Stick them into your ears. Plug into the wall...............and you're off on your time machine!!!!!! Say hello to Jesus when you see him!!!!!!

You can travel forward in time, simply by virtue of moving very fast, but it is impossible to travel back in time.
LOL Not even if you travel very very slow?

LOL Not even if you travel very very slow?

Time travel is easily possible if you cool something to -274 degrees below zero Celsius. :D

If you are able to travel faster than the speed of light you can travel backwards in time. The theory of relativity only states that you cannot travel AT the speed of light not beyond it. To do this you will have to discover a way to transverse the speed of about 186,282 miles/sec without ever being at that speed. (Imagine going from 186,281mps to 186,283mps without doing 186,282m/sec and that's what you have to be able to do.)
Good luck doing it. If you can you'll be famous.

Another way is to take an extension cord. Cut off the female end. Shave off the plastic on that end. Split the wire into 2 pieces. Stick them into your ears. Plug into the wall...............and you're off on your time machine!!!!!! Say hello to Jesus when you see him!!!!!!

jesus Christ, you trying to kill someone?? I'll thank you to know I had a mouthful of soda when I read that, damn you!! :)

Look I know this sounds childish, and even stupid, but just for wasting some time.

The other day I was reading about that it is possible to travel through time, moreover it was confirmed by a mathematical ecuation, you all know the rumors about the military (e.g they have aliens, have underground cities, have Bryan Adams hidden, and all those myths) so i decided to "research" this matter and i came upon a book named: the trojan horse, in which the character who is a soldier that the author interviewed, travels back in time to the time of Jesus and all those things. That made me wonder if it was really possible.

I heard there were conspiricies in Brazil about people travelling through time...

Personally I think its a lot of Ballocks

the trojan horse, in which the character who is a soldier that the author interviewed, travels back in time to the time of Jesus and all those things.
Not possible, the only way we think that it is possible to travel through time, time dilated wormholes, doesn't allow you to go back before the time machine was created.

Theoretically, yes. supposedly, any object moving faster than the speed of light would be traveling backwards in time. Theoretically, anyway.

If you are truly interested in the possibilities of time travel, though, I recommend you do a Google on "John Titor."

John was a self-proclaimed time-traveler who first appeared on the Internet in November 2000?? (I think) and then disappeared in January of the very next year. No one was ever able to satisfactorily debunk any of his claims of time travel. It makes for some interesting reading, anyway.

John Titor was a hoax... certainly. Take the time and read it closely, you'll realize a multiplicity of inconsistencies in his claims (i point here two what I posted earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433451&page=2&pp=15)).

Personally, I think it may be possible to travel in time. I haven't ruled it in or out, I just have an open mind on what I consider an interesting topic.

Well, maybe. But if it becomes possible, certainly not in the near future...

It's impossible to travel in time, and here's why: You can always, only, ever be here in "now." It's always now, no matter what "time" might be on the clock; so no, you haven't travelled at all. It's still now!

There are a few possible ways to travel through time at a different rate than 1 sec/sec. First of all, I want to try to resolve an earlier dispute. In order to travel back in time to a time before the creation of your time machine, the time machine needs to be one which takes itself with it. Otherwise, there would be nothing for it to send you to. Before anyone brings up the book Timeline as a counterargument, remember that what they were actually doing was travelling to another universe. I know their explanation leaves some holes, but that's not what I'm discussing.
Okay, the first method is to create an artificial wormhole, drag one end around for a while at close to the speed of light, and then bring it back to near the other end. The two ends will be temporally separated from each other because of the relativistic effects, but they will still be connected. This type of time machine will allow time travel by a specific amount of time to anytime after the ends were reunited. This was done in Timelike Infinity and Ring by Stephen Baxter, an author well known for not breaking the laws of physics. Also, I see that Epsonee wrote about a method like this.
Method 2 is to find a cosmic string, and fly around it in a certain way which is not particularly clear to me. The physics behind this method involves the fact that around cosmic strings, space is conical. This method was also used in Ring by Stephen Baxter.
Method 3 is to travel faster than the speed of light. As Fan Grenwick said, the theory of relativity only prohibits travelling at the speed of light. It might be possible to skip over the speed of light. Once you do that, getting to 2c is actually easy, since it's been mathematically shown that adding energy makes your speed approach c, not necessarily get faster. This means that you would need as much energy while going 2c as you would while going 0.5c.
Finally, you could use the device that was in Napoleon Dynamite, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Now onto the paradoxes! (I'm sorry for the exclamation point, but I love paradoxes!) There is no reason that a predestination paradox (such as becoming your own parent) would ever be a problem. It may be confusing to think about, but so are a lot of things, and that doesn't make them impossible. The real problem comes with things like the grandfather paradox (where you take actions in the past that change the future). Stephen Hawking maintains that the universe will conspire to prevent a paradox. This can be interpreted as meaning either that travelling to the past is impossible, or that if you try to change the past, something will always happen, seemingly by chance, to prevent you. Another possibility is that when you travel to the past, you immediately create a parallel universe and are eternally cut off from your original universe. Any changes you make will reflect on the future of this new universe, but as a relic of the original universe, you will remain unaffected. The Back to the Future movies kind of made a mess of these possibilities. In the 2nd movie, Doc Brown's explanation made it clear that they were dealing with parallel universes. However, if that was the case, then there would be no reason for Marty to start to disappear from the photo, because it was from the original universe, and would therefore remain unharmed. Contrary to what the movies claim, every time Marty returns to 1985, he is actually in a different universe because their actions in the past made slight but noticable changes to the present of their new universe.
Most, if not all, of what I've said can be found in the book Time Travel in Einstein’s Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time by Richard J. Gott. Well, not the Napoleon Dynamite one, but the rest is real.

John Titor was a hoax... certainly. Take the time and read it closely, you'll realize a multiplicity of inconsistencies in his claims (i point here two what I posted earlier (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=433451&page=2&pp=15)).



Well, maybe. But if it becomes possible, certainly not in the near future...


Well, again...hoax or not, it still makes for interesting reading. I retain an open mind. I can't prove or disprove anything on it, really. I do find it interesting, however, and not to hijack the thread...but people are willing to ignore a whole lot more inconsistencies in, say, the Bible...than they are in a guy like John Titor...and I have to wonder why that is.

My own favorite inconsistency goes something like this, and anyone with the exact chapter and verse can feel free to correct my numbers, but this is the general idea...

On two seperate occasions, Jesus feeds the masses with loaves and fishes. On one occasion, he had five loaves and two fishes, fed 5,000 men plus women and children, and there was enough left over to fill 12 baskets.

On another occasion, he had like seven loaves and two fishes, fed 4,000 men plus women and children, and there was only enough left over to fill seven baskets.

What gives...he started with more...fed fewer...and there were fewer leftovers?? That don't seem to quite add up....

you see what I mean?

It's impossible to travel in time, and here's why: You can always, only, ever be here in "now." It's always now, no matter what "time" might be on the clock; so no, you haven't travelled at all. It's still now!

That is only due to our limits on perception. We percieve three dimensions, (height, width, depth) and with time being a fourth dimension, we percieve that as moving in the same direction, and at the same speed, always.

just because our own perception does not allow us to see things in a different way, that does not preclude them from possibility. Just that we may not be able to perceive them in the way that, say, another race or species or life-form might.

you ever see Flatworld? They only saw in two dimensions. They were not able to perceive "height." So does that mean height does not exist? No...just that THEY were not able to perceive it.

similarly, WE may not be able to percieve time as a fourth dimension flowing in the opposite direction as we do...or at a different speed than we do. Doesn't mean it can't happen. Just that we, with our filters, cannot perceive it.

I know it's a pretty abstract concept, but think about the possibilities, if only we could perceive what we are currently incapable of perceiving!! What keeps us from perceiving that which we don't, and what if those filters could be, somehow, overcome? what possibilities might be opened to us at that point?

P.S. Another way to illustrate this whaich might be easier to wrap the brain around, for those not used to abstract thought...The visible spectrum of light, red, orange, yeloow, green, blue, indigo, violet...is only a small arc of the full spectrum of light energy. You have heard of infrared and ultraviolet, right? What prevents us from seeing the colors beyond the visible spectrum is only the bio-chemical structure of our eyes.

I'm conjecturing, here, that, if that structure were somehow altered, we would see things that we currently don't.

Similarly, if we were somehow able to overcome the filters on our perceptions, concerning the fourth dimension of time...would we be able to perceive time as flowing backwards? Sideways? (into parallel universes, perhaps?) Or maybe faster or slower than we do now? And what possibilities might that open to us?

What is it about this fourth axis...time...that keeps us from seeing it as moving in a different direction or speed? We know we can perceive things at different directions, speeds, etc, on the three axes of height, width, depth...so what prevents us from seeing different directions or speeds on the fourth axis...time? what filters do we have that prevent us?

Time travel is possible (apparently) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4097258.stm)

Time travel is possible (apparently)
Clearly, the present never is changed by mischievous time-travellers: people don't suddenly fade into the ether because a rerun of events has prevented their births - that much is obvious.

So either time travel is not possible, or something is actually acting to prevent any backward movement from changing the present.
I've seen this before, and it's quite absurd. I mean, if the past were changed so that it altered the present, why/how could we ever know it? We would be changed, too. So this statement is preposterous.

I have a time machine that lets you traverse several hours into the future...

It consists of two primary components...

First, you set the Chronologic Destination Device (http://www.chant4.co.uk/design/images/page_images/alarm%20clock.jpg) to the appropriate hour you wish to go to...

Second, you enter the Time Displacement Device (http://www.pashahome.com/ohio%20bed.gif) and turn off all lights....

After what may seem like a short time; the Chronologic Destination Device (http://www.chant4.co.uk/design/images/page_images/alarm%20clock.jpg) when alarm; alerting you of your arrival at your new time.

I have not yet perfected the system to travel backwards.... But it's in the works for now....

I have a time machine that lets you traverse several hours into the future...

It consists of two primary components...

First, you set the Chronologic Destination Device (http://www.chant4.co.uk/design/images/page_images/alarm%20clock.jpg) to the appropriate hour you wish to go to...

Second, you enter the Time Displacement Device (http://www.pashahome.com/ohio%20bed.gif) and turn off all lights....

After what may seem like a short time; the Chronologic Destination Device (http://www.chant4.co.uk/design/images/page_images/alarm%20clock.jpg) when alarm; alerting you of your arrival at your new time.

I have not yet perfected the system to travel backwards.... But it's in the works for now....
Magic!

hrrfggf Never mind

So can I punch sombody in the nuts even though they cannot see me?

This has, potential.

I like how you think. :)

the trojan horse, in which the character who is a soldier that the author interviewed, travels back in time to the time of Jesus and all those things. That made me wonder if it was really possible.
Trojan Horse. Good book, intriguing. There are actually five books in the series, though only the first two are any good. And the second is no THAT good.

Anyway, no. It's not possible to alter our path through time, at least as far as we know.

Travel through wormholes involve very special circumstances and more than one highly hypotetical elements. Plus a wormhole is not big enough to allow even one atom through.

Disregarding the pedants who insist that we're all travelling forwards through time at one second per second, the answer is no. Time travel is not possible.

As a science-fiction tool, time travel is very useful and makes for some great stories. But science-fiction isn't science, unfortunately.

But of course we have to define what we mean by 'impossible'. 'Impossible' simply means it can't be done. It doesn't mean that there's no way to do it. See?

Lots of posters have cited various methods of achieving a move through time. They've offered such ideas as warping spacetime, linking wormholes, and so on. And these notions do hold water. They would indeed serve to create a time machine, of sorts. The only problem is: they can't be done. The energy required to sustain a wormhole would be literally unimaginable. In other words, take the biggest amount of energy you can imagine, and you'd still need more. Likewise with the idea of travelling faster than light. It can't be done. Matter cannot travel at or faster than the speed of light. Again, the energy required to accelerate any material object to the speed of light would be more than has ever been or could ever be in the universe.

The question of how time would work out the paradox if we could go back and kill our grandfathers (who do seem to come in for a lot of stick in time travel theory - personally I liked the one granddad I met) is irrelevant, because it couldn't be done in the first place. Actually, in my experience this seems to be the normal way of things with paradoxes.

Still - yes, there are ways by which time travel could be achieved. But no, it's not possible to do what needs to be done to make those ways practicable. Therefore, time travel remains firmly the domain of Doctor Who and his fictitious associates.

Time is subjective. As one approaches the velocity of light, time dilates. To the perspective of the traveler, time outside his spacecraft is accelerating. He could make a 4.5 year trip to Alpha Centauri in a few weeks. To the person on Earth waiting his return, the traveler would return from a round trip 9 years later and would only have aged a couple months.

So 'time travel' into the future is quite easy. It's only a matter of approaching the velocity of light.

Everything else is merely conjecture. However, Einstein could not eliminate the possibility of an object traveling FASTER than light. He could only prove that the velocity of light barrier could not be surpassed. SO the question is, what would faster-than-light travel's effect on time be for the traveler? We really don't know.

There is another assumption that time dilation is an effect of near-light travel. Is it possible that it is an effect of something else? Could it be that traveling at those speeds is merely ONE way of generating time dilation? Perhaps the actual mechanic of altering the progression of time is something that can be triggered by other means. If so, it might be possible to completely reverse the progression of time.

It's important to note, however, that travel through time requires travel through space as well. Why? Because we ARE traveling through space. If you travel six months into the future without changing position, you will die in the cold heartless vacuum of space. Why? Because the Earth will be on the other side of the sun. :)

Also, the Milky Way is spinning, All objects are in motion at incredible speeds. In order to safely travel through time, you would also have to safely travel through space to arrive at your point of departure.

What about the tunnel theory where you throw things down this laser tunnel and stuff comes back to you from the past or future.

Thought I should add that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

It is possible to travel faster than light in a material, but if you do, you will emit Cerenkov radiation.

my understanding is that things slow down as you approach the speed of light, so in that respect, you can time travel forward. but to travel back in time, you would have to exceed the speed of light, which is probably only possible under theoretical conditions.

Well, again...hoax or not, it still makes for interesting reading. I retain an open mind. I can't prove or disprove anything on it, really. I do find it interesting, however, and not to hijack the thread...but people are willing to ignore a whole lot more inconsistencies in, say, the Bible...than they are in a guy like John Titor...and I have to wonder why that is.

My own favorite inconsistency goes something like this, and anyone with the exact chapter and verse can feel free to correct my numbers, but this is the general idea...

On two seperate occasions, Jesus feeds the masses with loaves and fishes. On one occasion, he had five loaves and two fishes, fed 5,000 men plus women and children, and there was enough left over to fill 12 baskets.

On another occasion, he had like seven loaves and two fishes, fed 4,000 men plus women and children, and there was only enough left over to fill seven baskets.

What gives...he started with more...fed fewer...and there were fewer leftovers?? That don't seem to quite add up....

you see what I mean?


mir·a·cle ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mr-kl)
n.
An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: “Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves” (Katherine Anne Porter).
One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder.
A miracle play.

Well...

From the frame of reference of antimatter, time would work the other way, presumably. Which is tricky, of course, because if you convert yourself into antimatter (somehow...) you're likely to end up in the center of a multi-megaton explosion caused by you interacting with the matter around you...

You could try a wormhole with both ends in this universe (If such things exist, which is somewhat doubtful) or find one naturally, there's a chance that the ends would be at different times.

I suppose you could wait a trillion years or so and see if uncertainty takes care of it for you by random chance. (Or invent an infinite improbability drive.)


But, the basic answer: given what we know about the nature of the universe, travelling backwards in time is almost certainly impossible.

We are always traveling one way through time. We can't change directions, but we can change speed. The faster you go through space, the faster you go through time, up until you hit the speed of light, which is impossible to pass bacause all extra energy exerted is converted to mass. Thus, you can't outrun light. You can only beat it through shortcuts.

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.

Traveling back in time is possible, traveling foward is possible.

I saw this on a thing my friend showed me to prove I was wrong about traveling in reverse. Well winning all-1 to 1 is still a good record

Forward, yes. It has been done.

Backward is theoretically possible and only works with multiple universes that can be travelled in. With one universe, it paradoxes.

It wouldn't just take multiple universes, but rather at least a functionally infinite number. I recall that, at 10^24 universes, the laws of probability break down to the point where backward time travel becomes possible without paradoxes.

There's nothing in the area of General Relativity that says it's impossible, so yes, I'd say it's possible.

Perhaps it is possible with one universe. Roll with me:

You go back in time and kill your grandfather, thus negating your own existance. Since you've been negated, there is no one to go back and negate your existance. You exist, which means you will go back and negate yourself, which un-negates you. Ect...

You see? Time glitches, never moving forward again!

Well...

From the frame of reference of antimatter, time would work the other way, presumably. Which is tricky, of course, because if you convert yourself into antimatter (somehow...) you're likely to end up in the center of a multi-megaton explosion caused by you interacting with the matter around you...Pardon?

Firstly, from the frame of reference of antimatter, time goes in exactly the same direction. Antimatter is composed of particles whose charge is reversed from the observed norm. This has no bearing on the arrow of time for those particles.

As far as a multi-megaton explosion is concerned, well, sort of, yes. The antimatter of which you would be composed would annihilate with as much matter as there is available, releasing ALL the stored energy in those particles in accordance with the formula E=mc^2. Only equal amounts of material would annihilate, though - so if we imagine, say 100 particles of antimatter come into contact with 90 particles of matter, then following the annihilation, 10 particles of antimatter would be left over.

Perhaps it is possible with one universe. Roll with me:

You go back in time and kill your grandfather, thus negating your own existance. Since you've been negated, there is no one to go back and negate your existance. You exist, which means you will go back and negate yourself, which un-negates you. Ect...

You see? Time glitches, never moving forward again!This is the extremely famous Grandfather Paradox. Often cited as the reason why time travel can't work. My take on it would be that the Grandfather Paradox does not prevent time travel from working, but is rather irrelevant BECAUSE time travel doesn't work.

Even if it could be make to work, there are plenty of hypothetical ways around this problem, from a branching timeline which allows you to make changes, to a protected timeline in which every change you make merely serves to make things as they always were for you (in short, that time would not allow you to create this paradox and would merely prevent you from carrying out the act. In other words, you can't kill your grandfather because your grandfather wasn't killed).

Okay, look around you. Right now.

now...

look around you again. Look!

There you have it, my friend. You have travelled 3 seconds into the future.

That will be 49.95, tax included. Thank-you, come again.Sorry, you did it wrong. it's suppose to be...
$10.00 for the first minute into the future
and only one penny for each addtional second you travel forwards.

please have your credit card ready or send check or money order to...

Pardon?

Firstly, from the frame of reference of antimatter, time goes in exactly the same direction. Antimatter is composed of particles whose charge is reversed from the observed norm. This has no bearing on the arrow of time for those particles.

As far as a multi-megaton explosion is concerned, well, sort of, yes. The antimatter of which you would be composed would annihilate with as much matter as there is available, releasing ALL the stored energy in those particles in accordance with the formula E=mc^2. Only equal amounts of material would annihilate, though - so if we imagine, say 100 particles of antimatter come into contact with 90 particles of matter, then following the annihilation, 10 particles of antimatter would be left over.

Any helpful links to support your position on Antimatter? Not that I challenge it, since it was a supposition on my part, not an arguement from knowledge, but t'would be nice to know why/if I'm wrong.

I was assuming that one was on earth, and if so, that not more than 50% of one would be blown into orbit before reacting with matter. At the very least, we're looking at around 5MT per kilogram of antimatter originally present, probably much more. Also I'll grant you that the explosion would be slow, widespread, and drawn out compared to a nuclear or chemical explosive of the same energy. So less power, but same energy released.

Look I know this sounds childish, and even stupid, but just for wasting some time.

The other day I was reading about that it is possible to travel through time, moreover it was confirmed by a mathematical ecuation, you all know the rumors about the military (e.g they have aliens, have underground cities, have Bryan Adams hidden, and all those myths) so i decided to "research" this matter and i came upon a book named: the trojan horse, in which the character who is a soldier that the author interviewed, travels back in time to the time of Jesus and all those things. That made me wonder if it was really possible.

i have traveled in time....i went several thousand years in to the future and defeated an evil...oh...that wasnt reality...damn you H.G wells!!!!!!!

Any helpful links to support your position on Antimatter? Not that I challenge it, since it was a supposition on my part, not an arguement from knowledge, but t'would be nice to know why/if I'm wrong.The Wiki entry would seem to be a good start:

Antimatter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter)

I was assuming that one was on earth, and if so, that not more than 50% of one would be blown into orbit before reacting with matter. At the very least, we're looking at around 5MT per kilogram of antimatter originally present, probably much more. Also I'll grant you that the explosion would be slow, widespread, and drawn out compared to a nuclear or chemical explosive of the same energy. So less power, but same energy released.If two exactly equal masses composed of matter and antimatter are brought into contact, they will annihilate each other completely. Without actually doing the calculations and the conversion from an SI energy unit into megatons, we can say the energy released from a 1kg mass of antimatter brought into contact with an equal mass of matter would be immense. I certainly would not want to be anywhere near it. But it would not be slow. It would in fact be extremely rapid - and the energy release would be absolute. Matter/antimatter annihilation is the most efficient form of energy generation there is, because ALL the material involved is converted into energy.

WARNING: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME-explained at bottom

If you want to travel back in time all you have to do is:

Build a tube at either the North or South Pole that is big enough to hold the mass of the sun. [WARNING: Don't make the tube too small and try to pack all that mass in there because then the tube will become another Sun.]

Then you have to spin it (clockwise or counter-depending on pole). I haven't quite figured out how to do that yet. It would probably take a lot of energy to spin the mass of the sun, IMO.

THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULD NOT TRY THIS AT HOME:
Once you do all that, and go back in time, the massive construction project will forever be being built and deconstructed in an infinite loop AND YOU WILL ONLY BE GOING AS FAR BACK IN TIME AS THE EXACT TIME THE PROJECT WAS FINISHED.
So what you need to do is, build it and then wait a day or a millenium to get any use out of it. Wouldn't want to waste all that effort for nothing.

If two exactly equal masses composed of matter and antimatter are brought into contact, they will annihilate each other completely. Without actually doing the calculations and the conversion from an SI energy unit into megatons, we can say the energy released from a 1kg mass of antimatter brought into contact with an equal mass of matter would be immense. I certainly would not want to be anywhere near it. But it would not be slow. It would in fact be extremely rapid - and the energy release would be absolute. Matter/antimatter annihilation is the most efficient form of energy generation there is, because ALL the material involved is converted into energy.

/hijack since this thread is dead anyway.

Slow is a fairly relative term...

The inefficiency of matter is because of the annoying "are brought into contact" part. As anyone who has studied rudimentary chemistry knows, most matter is empty space. (I'm not sure whether the matter/antimatter reaction occurs on the level of quanta or subatomic particals or even atoms, but it certainly isn't on a large scale).

So, if you turn into antimatter (somehow..) in an uninclosed space (like the surface of earth, you will be instantly blown to bits; every microgram of matter that comes in contact with antimater will generate energy akin to a good-sized grenade. However, the energy would only be generated when the particals struck one another.

So, say in the first microsecond you react with the most readily availabe particals; maybe about 90% from the ground and 10% from the air.

BAM! the few surviving little anti-bits of you go flying all over the place. As they fly, they interact with more matter, producing secondary reactions, and teritary reactions, etcetera. Much like a simple chemical explosive, where the explosion is spread among volatile particals by heat energy, rather than being instantanious, or how the neutron - atom - neutrons - atoms explosion of a nuclear warhead progresses.

I would presume that since the explosion carriers in this hypothetical antimater reaction are mostly in contact with air (and will be driven upward, at least initially, by the high percentage of reaction from below) it will be very "slow" compared to a slug of plutonium. A significant amount of it might even be ejected into orbit, to slowly burn out as it impacts scant particals in the earth's uper atmosphere.

On the other hand, I may be significantly underestimating the density of air here...

Time travel forward is possible by placing your brain into a state where you cannot detect the world around you. Time travel backwards, however, is impossible, as time is linear.

As anyone who has studied rudimentary chemistry knows, most matter is empty space.No it isn't. Empty space is empty space. It's empty because it hasn't got any matter (or antimatter) in it.(I'm not sure whether the matter/antimatter reaction occurs on the level of quanta or subatomic particals or even atoms, but it certainly isn't on a large scale)An antimatter 'atom' would be composed of subatomic antimatter particles. Antimatter is the same as matter in every respect aside from the polarity of its charge. A matter/antimatter reaction will take place on every level simultaneously, where any two particles or masses of opposing charge come into contact.So, if you turn into antimatter (somehow..) in an uninclosed space (like the surface of earth, you will be instantly blown to bits; every microgram of matter that comes in contact with antimater will generate energy akin to a good-sized grenade.A VERY good size.

Okay, for the sake of it, let's imagine that, as you suggest, I turn into antimatter while I'm standing on the Earth's surface - which doesn't. This is bad news for me. Let's round my weight up to 100kg. If we use E=mc^2 to work out the energy content of that mass, we get, roughly, 8,990,000,000,000,000,000 Joules. That's equivalent to about 2 gigatons of TNT - that's 2,000 megatons. So if I am completely annihilated and converted entirely into energy, I'll release the equivalent of 154,000 times the Hiroshima bomb.

Now let's bear in mind that I'm going to release the energy of 100kg of the Earth as well. 200kg of matter converted entirely to energy gives us about 4 gigatons. Whichever way you look at it, that's bad news.

We don't want any people turning into antimatter, really.

As to your description of the actual process of the annihilation, and whether it would affect only part of the body in question or the whole mass at once, it's an interesting question that's beyond my knowledge. No doubt a physicist would be able to answer that question for you. But I can tell you that the question remains academic, since the realistic generation of antimatter in quantities of more than a few particles at once is still unfeasible.

Either way, I'm never going to say, "I don't have the energy" ever again... :D

i think is it possible to travel back in time,but havent seen anyone from the future visit us i can only sadly conclude that earth has been destroyed in the near of far future by some cataclismic event......think about it!