Time Travel? possible?

[masterdez]

thought id ad some more thoughts..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i agree with te notion that time can be dilated or distorted with relation to eienstiens theory of relativity etc, but the notion of a 'time machine' or 'time travel' scenario, as seen in movies like the terminator, is impossible, there are just too many paradoxes to suggest it is completely illogical, i.e. going back in time before you were born etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

another revelation - in a couple billion years, when the sun dies (this is inevitable), how will we judge time?, as time is judged by the earth's revolution along its own axis and around the sun i.e. 365 days = 1 revolution around the sun, 24 hours = 1 day = 1 earth revolution around its axis and so on and so forth until you divide seconds in a decimal fasion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time isnt measured in relation to our orbit with the sun anymore, it is measured accurately in seconds by the decay or the change of electron states in nuclei.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time can be slowed, or sped up, depending on our speed or the strength of the gravitational field we are in. Time is always relative to the person, time isnt universal, time is different to everyone as no two clocks can ever be alike.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say someone was travelling at a "standard speed" and you travelled faster, you would only experience more things in a shorter period of time, and vise versa for travelling slower, less things in a longer period of time, so less occurances per time period.

[masterdez]

 

jemathonical wrote:

 

 

 

Time travel will never happen. How i know this.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If time travel did get invented in the future, the time traveller will have already come back and time and told us about it. And so far, no one has come in screaming "Guns will kill the whole world in 35 years!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time traveling through the past, is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

according to crrent physics, im pretty sure you cant exist in the same point in space-time twice. know why they call it a continuum? because it keeps going, pretty sure it dosent go backwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quantum theory does say you can exist in 2 places at the same time, thats how a quantum computer would work.

[insane]

It seems a lot of people don't get it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole 0.2 seconds into the future thing? It's nothing more than the guy technically being ahead in time by 0.2 seconds. MAN-MADE time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time is a subject MADE by man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The real time travel lies in traveling through Space-Time, which to me, makes NO logical sense because time is said to be linear. But who knows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. All it really means is that he has lived for 0.2 seconds less/more than everyone else did.

[Ragen]

Hang on. I just think I saw a flaw in the Astronaught theory. If the Milky way galaxy is moving (I think it is) or if the solar system is moving (I think it is), then wouldn't any movement away from the direction in which the solar system is moving count as slowing down? Let me draw a picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lets say that the solar system is moving at 100 and that the earth movies around the sun at 10. As the Earth Moves in the direction of the solar system it is going at 110 and as it moves away it is going at 90 (well it is when parallel to the movement of the solar system, I couldn't work out the rest of the figures but you get the point). So that the average speed, even though it was moving faster around inside the solar system, was 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be a simular situation with the satellite orbiting around earth and the solar system orbiting round the galaxy but I don't know how to explain it. This only applies to things orbiting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But my question is what do you measure speed from in order to do the calculations? The best bet would be to find a piece of space that is totally/ almost totally unaffected by gravity and place a beacon there and measure speed from that. We could be travelling along at several million miles per hour and be oblivious to it as everything else is going at the same speed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies if everything I have wrote here is wrong, my GSCE physics class doesn't cover things like this. I'm just going on a hunch.

[goku_nazz]

If you want to time travel, you have to travel FASTER than the speed of light.

[masterdez]

Hang on. I just think I saw a flaw in the Astronaught theory. If the Milky way galaxy is moving (I think it is) or if the solar system is moving (I think it is), then wouldn't any movement away from the direction in which the solar system is moving count as slowing down? Let me draw a picture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lets say that the solar system is moving at 100 and that the earth movies around the sun at 10. As the Earth Moves in the direction of the solar system it is going at 110 and as it moves away it is going at 90 (well it is when parallel to the movement of the solar system, I couldn't work out the rest of the figures but you get the point). So that the average speed, even though it was moving faster around inside the solar system, was 100.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be a simular situation with the satellite orbiting around earth and the solar system orbiting round the galaxy but I don't know how to explain it. This only applies to things orbiting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But my question is what do you measure speed from in order to do the calculations? The best bet would be to find a piece of space that is totally/ almost totally unaffected by gravity and place a beacon there and measure speed from that. We could be travelling along at several million miles per hour and be oblivious to it as everything else is going at the same speed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apologies if everything I have wrote here is wrong, my GSCE physics class doesn't cover things like this. I'm just going on a hunch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand where you are coming from, but there are no reference points in space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In theory you can travel faster than the speed of light. Say the earth was moving at a speec 1/4 the speed of light, the solar system was moving at 1/4 the speed of light, the galaxy 1/4 the speed of light, and the universe 1/4 the speed of light, we would be travelling at the speed of light relative to someone watching our universe fly by. Although the speeds are slightly exaggerated, this is possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, our speed is only relative to the object we are travelling on or with at the same speed as ourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So even though our solar system may be travelling in a different direction, or the same, and our compound VELOCITY may change, the MAGNITUDE OF THE VELOCITY (ie speed) stays the same, and thats all that matters.

[Tigra00]

^^ I THINK, on the documentary I watched, it said something about not being able to go past the speed of light under any circumstances, even if an outside object (that you were "in" effectively) was moving at 1/4 the speed of light, and you went the other 3/4 + 1 MPS, you would still not be moving faster than the speed of light because the speed of light is constant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I would guess that means is that you can't add the speed of the "object" you're "in" (the galaxy, whatever) and then add the speed of your..space ship.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They gave an example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Albert Einstien and his twin brother were both in space ships that could go 1 MPS under the speed of light. Albert took off and got to full speed. His brother, Uhhh, Falbert(? :lol:) stayed behind and turned on his ultra-awesome high-powered headlights on his ship. One would ASSUME that when the light finally caught up to Albert, it would pass him slowly like a car passes another car on the highway. For a second, they appear to be going very slowly past you, even though they are going faster than you are. However, since the speed of light is constant, Albert Einstien theorized (and proved, apparently, however he did that, I forget...) that the light would appear to fly by the space ship at the speed of light to the driver (Albert) because the speed of it is constant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if the two are related 100%, but it would seem so.

[masterdez]

The thing is you yourself are not moving at the speed of light, the universe around you is moving so that you appear to be moving at the speed of light, so an outside observer would think you were travelling at the speed of light, if that makes sense.

[Tigra00]

The thing is you yourself are not moving at the speed of light, the universe around you is moving so that you appear to be moving at the speed of light, so an outside observer would think you were travelling at the speed of light, if that makes sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You'd think so logically. I'd have to read more into it, but what I posted was the example I heard, and I think it would apply here aswell.

[Gamerr]

No. Impossible, however you look at it.

[masterdez]

No. Impossible, however you look at it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why? you cant just say that and give nothing to back it up :?

[Biabf]

Nah that wouldn't work but you let you have a longer day.

[Barihawk]

Faster than light travel is possible, the theories are there, and the equipment is planned. The only thing lacking is a suitable power source. Nuclear Fusion is too weak, and powerful Matter/Anti-Matter reactions are implausible due to the sheer cost of creating anti-matter ($1 Billion US per ounce!).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until we can tame antimatter (1 pound of the stuff could power the entire world for 1 hour), we can't generate the electromagnetic fields that "warp" the time/space coefficient. NASA has all the theories regarding "warp speed", but technology has not caught up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And before you start flaming me as a Trekki (which I am guilty of), Warp Travel has been theorized since the 50's, and the first anti-matter was created in 1939.

[darkmage099]

 

No. Impossible, however you look at it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why? you cant just say that and give nothing to back it up :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back it up that you can. His post is better than saying it is possible (I am not saying it is or is not).

[cmeski]

I don't like getting into all of those theories and math. I simply think of time travel this way: If time travel was possible, wouldn't you think that at least one person from the future would have come to our present time to tell us?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If time travel was possible at any point in the future, someone would have come back and said so. Since there has been no credible time travelers, I still believe time travel is impossible.

[masterdez]

Faster than light travel is possible, the theories are there, and the equipment is planned. The only thing lacking is a suitable power source. Nuclear Fusion is too weak, and powerful Matter/Anti-Matter reactions are implausible due to the sheer cost of creating anti-matter ($1 Billion US per ounce!).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until we can tame antimatter (1 pound of the stuff could power the entire world for 1 hour), we can't generate the electromagnetic fields that "warp" the time/space coefficient. NASA has all the theories regarding "warp speed", but technology has not caught up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And before you start flaming me as a Trekki (which I am guilty of), Warp Travel has been theorized since the 50's, and the first anti-matter was created in 1939.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear Fusion is too weak

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats the most funny thing ive heard in a long time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole UNIVERSE is powered by nuclear fusion, and its weak!?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you say that, i can hardly believe the rest of the stuff you say in your post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Id be interested to hear about the plans for faster than the speed of light travel if you have them

[BlueLancer]

Faster than light travel is possible, the theories are there, and the equipment is planned. The only thing lacking is a suitable power source. Nuclear Fusion is too weak, and powerful Matter/Anti-Matter reactions are implausible due to the sheer cost of creating anti-matter ($1 Billion US per ounce!).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until we can tame antimatter (1 pound of the stuff could power the entire world for 1 hour), we can't generate the electromagnetic fields that "warp" the time/space coefficient. NASA has all the theories regarding "warp speed", but technology has not caught up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And before you start flaming me as a Trekki (which I am guilty of), Warp Travel has been theorized since the 50's, and the first anti-matter was created in 1939.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm wondering do you have sources for these? I do have some knowledge about antimatter, and it would take 2 billion years to create *1* gram of antimatter, so I don't get the 'expensive' reference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear fusion is also not 'weak'. Look at stars, some of them are larger than the sun. They 'shine' only because of nuclear fusion. It's the most powerful current energy source.

[Guest GhostRanger]

Nuclear fusion is also not 'weak'. Look at stars, some of them are larger than the sun. They 'shine' only because of nuclear fusion. It's the most powerful current energy source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know anything about this so please clarify... nuclear fusion makes stars shine - but isn't that still only the speed of light?

[Barihawk]

 

Faster than light travel is possible, the theories are there, and the equipment is planned. The only thing lacking is a suitable power source. Nuclear Fusion is too weak, and powerful Matter/Anti-Matter reactions are implausible due to the sheer cost of creating anti-matter ($1 Billion US per ounce!).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Until we can tame antimatter (1 pound of the stuff could power the entire world for 1 hour), we can't generate the electromagnetic fields that "warp" the time/space coefficient. NASA has all the theories regarding "warp speed", but technology has not caught up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And before you start flaming me as a Trekki (which I am guilty of), Warp Travel has been theorized since the 50's, and the first anti-matter was created in 1939.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear Fusion is too weak

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats the most funny thing ive heard in a long time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole UNIVERSE is powered by nuclear fusion, and its weak!?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you say that, i can hardly believe the rest of the stuff you say in your post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Id be interested to hear about the plans for faster than the speed of light travel if you have them

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forgive me, I meant to say Nuclear Fission. I'm not an astrophysicist, I just read an article from NASA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Bluelancer, that estimate was from 1939. $1 billion is the cost based on a proposed machine that could produce an ounce, but it has not been tested (as it's cost would probably be the half the budge of the Congress of the US, with $1 billion per ounce made with it).

[masterdez]

Easy mistake to make :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only problem is, there would be no easy way to dispose of the antimatter without blowing the earth in 2

[Tigra00]

Last I read, it would take 100 billion years and 100 quadrillion dollars to make 1 gram of anti-matter with the current methods and funding it's recieving...Not exactly "reasonable" yet. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERN created only several picograms of anti-matter and it cost $20 million to do so. That was in 2004.

[BlueLancer]

 

Nuclear fusion is also not 'weak'. Look at stars, some of them are larger than the sun. They 'shine' only because of nuclear fusion. It's the most powerful current energy source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know anything about this so please clarify... nuclear fusion makes stars shine - but isn't that still only the speed of light?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is, you're right, but I was commenting on the power source of a supposed time warp machine. There's hardly anything more powerful.

[masterdez]

 

 

Nuclear fusion is also not 'weak'. Look at stars, some of them are larger than the sun. They 'shine' only because of nuclear fusion. It's the most powerful current energy source.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know anything about this so please clarify... nuclear fusion makes stars shine - but isn't that still only the speed of light?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is, you're right, but I was commenting on the power source of a supposed time warp machine. There's hardly anything more powerful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That we yet know of

[Barihawk]

Easy mistake to make :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only problem is, there would be no easy way to dispose of the antimatter without blowing the earth in 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except to combine it with matter through a medium (such as crystalline lithium or some other crystalline element) with electromagnets controlling the flow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, if someone were to throw that pound of antimatter on the ground, it would be like 10 nuclear bombs.

[warri0r45]

Time isnt measured in relation to our orbit with the sun anymore, it is measured accurately in seconds by the decay or the change of electron states in nuclei.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

didnt actually know that. didnt do physics in school so most of the stuff discussed from your comment on is kinda new to me, interesting though.