"Time Travel"

[fgfuyfyuiuy0]

 

My AH teacher just told me about it. And I meant the speed of light :P. And nothing is impossible.

 

 

 

It's impossible for me to physically fly without the help of another object/force.

[anonymous1234]

 

My AH teacher just told me about it. And I meant the speed of light :P. And nothing is impossible.

 

 

 

It's impossible for me to physically fly without the help of another object/force.

 

Where did that thread go anyway? Lost in the rollback?

[Intriguing]

Once I went to a planetarium and the guy said that people invented a way to see the present, but it's classified, but they showed us a few stars that are non existnt and some places where there are stats but we can't yet see them

 

That guy was full of crap.

 

 

 

Well, no. But until we observe time travel, that doesn't have any practical application either.

 

To an extent. The thing about time travel is that we already know how it works. The greatest problem is building a spaceship fast enough for it to be useful. When it comes to wormholes, there are a lot more variables, and things we are unsure of. I think assassin_696 said it earlier--we know that for wormholes to be traversable, we need some "exotic matter". The problem with that is that we don't even know what this exotic matter is, we just know it's necessary.

[assassin_696]

This dosent have much to do with time travel, but time travel is possible with bening space time, as confirmed by Einstein. Things that are sucked into a black hole are pushed out at another end, called a white hole, and the white hole is in a different time than the black hole. Scientists have tried to send machines to try it, but Stephen Hawkins (o w/e he is) says that the black hole would collapse before the destination would be reached, leaving the machine stuck inside the tunnel stuck in the black hole, leaving nothing there to be done.

 

 

 

That's pure speculation, little/nothing is known about what happens at black-hole singularities.

[onuasdad]

This dosent have much to do with time travel, but time travel is possible with bening space time, as confirmed by Einstein. Things that are sucked into a black hole are pushed out at another end, called a white hole, and the white hole is in a different time than the black hole. Scientists have tried to send machines to try it, but Stephen Hawkins (o w/e he is) says that the black hole would collapse before the destination would be reached, leaving the machine stuck inside the tunnel stuck in the black hole, leaving nothing there to be done.

 

 

 

That's pure speculation, little/nothing is known about what happens at black-hole singularities.

 

 

 

No offence, but I'm 100% sure that Stephen Hawkins is sure about what he's talking about.

[assassin_696]

No offence, but I'm 100% sure that Stephen Hawkins is sure about what he's talking about.

 

 

 

And no offence, but since you're not even spelling his name correctly i'm less inclined to take you on your word. I could give you a mini-lecture about how just because Stephen Hawking is a visible scientist doesn't make his theories infalliable (indeed, his major theory about information loss in black holes has conclusively been disproven) but i'll spare it. I know Hawking's work reasonably well at least in the abstract, so if you could put me towards your source for that claim i'd appreciate it.

[onuasdad]

No offence, but I'm 100% sure that Stephen Hawkins is sure about what he's talking about.

 

 

 

And no offence, but since you're not even spelling his name correctly i'm less inclined to take you on your word. I could give you a mini-lecture about how just because Stephen Hawking is a visible scientist doesn't make his theories infalliable (indeed, his major theory about information loss in black holes has conclusively been disproven) but i'll spare it. I know Hawking's work reasonably well at least in the abstract, so if you could put me towards your source for that claim i'd appreciate it.

 

 

 

If books are published with facts in them, then after it's published, the facts are prooven wrong, the book can't automatically change the mistakes.

[assassin_696]

No offence, but I'm 100% sure that Stephen Hawkins is sure about what he's talking about.

 

 

 

And no offence, but since you're not even spelling his name correctly i'm less inclined to take you on your word. I could give you a mini-lecture about how just because Stephen Hawking is a visible scientist doesn't make his theories infalliable (indeed, his major theory about information loss in black holes has conclusively been disproven) but i'll spare it. I know Hawking's work reasonably well at least in the abstract, so if you could put me towards your source for that claim i'd appreciate it.

 

 

 

If books are published with facts in them, then after it's published, the facts are prooven wrong, the book can't automatically change the mistakes.

 

 

 

No, but that wasn't my point. I've read nearly all of Hawking's books so I looked up which book he mentioned white holes in. I believe it was Black Holes and Baby Universes (an essay collection)? When you read the book in context, he was rightly being very clear in saying that his discussion about white holes was speculative, not scientific consensus. A white hole is the time reverse of a black hole, he was talking about the possibility for space travel and how these might provide an opportunity for it. But it's simply a mathematically possible solution of Einstein's General Relativity, and until there's empirical evidence bears little relation to the physical reality. Even within the mathematics white holes are very special cases, and collapse immediately when put into conditions like those of our own universe. The inner workings of black holes would be governed by the (as yet undiscovered) laws of quantum gravity, and until these laws are discovered any discussion about what goes on inside them is just speculation. Hawking made the comments in a popular science book with no mathematical framework or justification, it wasn't a peer-reviewed science paper. Besides, black holes don't collapse anyway, they evaporate.

[onuasdad]

No offence, but I'm 100% sure that Stephen Hawkins is sure about what he's talking about.

 

 

 

And no offence, but since you're not even spelling his name correctly i'm less inclined to take you on your word. I could give you a mini-lecture about how just because Stephen Hawking is a visible scientist doesn't make his theories infalliable (indeed, his major theory about information loss in black holes has conclusively been disproven) but i'll spare it. I know Hawking's work reasonably well at least in the abstract, so if you could put me towards your source for that claim i'd appreciate it.

 

 

 

If books are published with facts in them, then after it's published, the facts are prooven wrong, the book can't automatically change the mistakes.

 

 

 

No, but that wasn't my point. I've read nearly all of Hawking's books so I looked up which book he mentioned white holes in. I believe it was Black Holes and Baby Universes (an essay collection)? When you read the book in context, he was rightly being very clear in saying that his discussion about white holes was speculative, not scientific consensus. A white hole is the time reverse of a black hole, he was talking about the possibility for space travel and how these might provide an opportunity for it. But it's simply a mathematically possible solution of Einstein's General Relativity, and until there's empirical evidence bears little relation to the physical reality. Even within the mathematics white holes are very special cases, and collapse immediately when put into conditions like those of our own universe. The inner workings of black holes would be governed by the (as yet undiscovered) laws of quantum gravity, and until these laws are discovered any discussion about what goes on inside them is just speculation. Hawking made the comments in a popular science book with no mathematical framework or justification, it wasn't a peer-reviewed science paper. Besides, black holes don't collapse anyway, they evaporate.

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing we can do is wait for technology to advance and people to invent machines that can survive the conditions of a black hole.

 

 

 

It's always possible that your best friend is someone wh time traveled from 1,000 years in the future because we don't know eh technoloy of the far future. :ohnoes: :?

[evil_mumm_ra]

it could also get stupid with possibilities, you could even be your own grandpa.

[cadburys_egg]

it could also get stupid with possibilities, you could even be your own grandpa.

 

Ive always liked that thought as sort of the ultimate form of revenge.

 

1. [*:tlheksbr]Get someone you hate alot, so much so that killing them wouldnt be enough.
    
   [*:tlheksbr]Travel back in time.
    
   [*:tlheksbr]Become their great/grand/parent.
    
   [*:tlheksbr]Dont give them money on their birthdays/christmas.
    
   [*:tlheksbr]???
    
   [*:tlheksbr]This time you do profit.

 

Personally, I think id be a great grandparent.

[EdgedThesis]

I always liked the idea of time travel that isn't really time travel, but a rip into a parallel universe that is older/younger than our own.

 

 

 

That way, it'd be impossible to screw our own timeline up, and there couldn't be any event paradoxes. If you killed your grandpa, you'd actually be killing your counterpart from being born, not yourself.

 

 

 

Of course, there'd be no way to know if a universe is exactly the same as ours up til that point.

 

 

 

Michael Chrichton used this in Timeline, haha. Not sure if it has any heavy scientific weight behind it.

[anonymous1234]

it could also get stupid with possibilities, you could even be your own grandpa.

 

Ive always liked that thought as sort of the ultimate form of revenge.

 

1. [*:2koxpo49]Get someone you hate alot, so much so that killing them wouldnt be enough.
    
   [*:2koxpo49]Travel back in time.
    
   [*:2koxpo49]Become their great/grand/parent.
    
   [*:2koxpo49]Dont give them money on their birthdays/christmas.
    
   [*:2koxpo49]???
    
   [*:2koxpo49]This time you do profit.

 

Personally, I think id be a great grandparent.

 

I know i shouldn't laugh, but I did

[loi86]

Is it impossible as of the time of this post:YES. Will it ever be possible to do this:Probably some day. But this really cannot be viewed as time travel because we are not traveling through time, but more like looking at a picture or a prerecorded tape.

[SnWRifleman]

Is it impossible as of the time of this post:YES. Will it ever be possible to do this:Probably some day. But this really cannot be viewed as time travel because we are not traveling through time, but more like looking at a picture or a prerecorded tape.

 

 

 

Well, it's a good name, thought literally you are not traveling in time. You are basically seeing the past, I guess. If you were to bend the dimensions, you can travel from one point into another. If you look at my other thread, "Dimensions", people explain how you can travel back into the past, if you could bend dimensions to travel from one point to another.