Time Travel- Fact or Fiction? -

Arxryl · #31 11-10-2006, 10:11 AM

Very interesting! Especially that part about the two 25 year old twins, or brothers, or sisters or whomever.

Fuzzle Guy · #32 11-10-2006, 10:51 AM

Yeah, I found that theory fascinating. I want to test it.

*Ties Hamster to remote control firework*

Bullet Magnet · #33 11-10-2006, 05:27 PM

:

Einstein actually proved a way of time alteration. It isn't time travel per se, what it is is slowing the aging process. You get 2 25 year old twins, and shoot one off into outer space at 98% the speed of light. They let 5 years pass on the ship's onboard clock, then turn round and shoot back to earth. The twin who lands is 35 (5 years away, 5 years back0 but the one who stayed on earth is now 70. This is because the faster you travel, the slower time lasts.

And if you attach one end of a wormhole to Earth, and the other to the spaceship, then when the ship comes back you could step through the 10 year old wormhole onboard and come out on Earth, 35 years in the past.

Munch's Master · #34 11-11-2006, 04:58 AM

^Yeah, I nearly posted that, but that's even more fictious as wormholes haven't yet been invented. Do you have the same source book as me? You honestly are like me in every other way so I wouldn't be too surprised.

Bullet Magnet · #35 11-11-2006, 05:00 AM

No, I calculated that one myself. Aren't you a Physics professor as well? The wormhole thing is fine, I just don't have a spcae ship to attach it too.

***Nate*** · #36 11-11-2006, 05:35 AM

I have plenty of spaceships lying around but none of them that can travel at the speed of light. Perhaps zooming the wormhole around in a particle accelerator for a few years would be a tad more plausible.

Munch's Master · #37 11-11-2006, 01:39 PM

I am not a phsyics professor. I am 14, studying at school, however I am one of the best in my year at Physics and find astrophysics fascinating. But I read in a book about that wormhole theory, another of Einstein's I believe. Very interesting, but it's all hypothetical anyway, as a wormhole has yet to be constructed. Or am I wrong?

Fuzzle Guy · #38 11-11-2006, 01:43 PM

I was going to keep it a secret till I announced it to the nation on Thursday but seeings as you're all incorrect I believe I have every right to correct you. I invented a wormhole.

Seriously though, how can a wormhole be invented. I mean, supposudly, it's a natrual thing. So how are you supposed to invent something that was made natrually. I suppose we could always make Munch's Master God for a week and he'd do it for us.

used:) · #39 11-11-2006, 02:14 PM

That was dumb.

Fuzzle Guy · #40 11-11-2006, 02:35 PM

It was intended to be. I've had a sudden flash of immaturity.

Majic · #41 11-11-2006, 05:59 PM

You can pretty much accept for a fact that time travel (under the assumption that you can travel back and alter your own timeline) will never be accomplished (at least, in any form that Government X and/or Private Coorporation Y will allow the public to know about). Why, you ask? Because there's yet to be any legitmate claim about a person traveling from the future. Granted, you can make any variety of arguments against the matter- ie, maybe the etertnally anticipated arrival from the future might be designated as a time we have yet to reach), but for the most part, it's about the most logical thing I've ever heard on the matter. As logical as time travel can be, anywho...

And now I have a strange hankering to watch Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Followed by a strong dose of Back to the Future.

Bullet Magnet · #42 11-11-2006, 08:08 PM

Given the ramifications, why would a time-traveller want to reveal his origin? I' personally keep it a secret, lest the timeline be polluted further.

Fuzzle Guy · #43 11-12-2006, 01:23 AM

I agree. If I was from the future, I would want to keep it a secret. Purely because I would not want to find myself in an institution before I was able to get back to the Future.

:

And now I have a strange hankering to watch Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

I did a Bill & Ted just recently. I had a History test on the Battle of the Somme coming up and I went on Holiday to the Somme and the museums and stuff

Bullet Magnet · #44 11-12-2006, 11:54 AM

When I do the air guitar thing, the noise actually happens.

magic9mushroom · #45 11-12-2006, 01:29 PM

Except in cases like this one
[experiment]
A bomb set to explode if it receives a particular particle is put next to a particle emitter. A time machine is used to send the particle back one hour at the bomb. So if the particle is sent, the bomb blows the emitter to bits and the particle is never sent. But if it isn't sent, then the bomb doesn't blow and the particle is sent. Paradox. End of universe.
[/experiment]
Of course, that still doesn't solve the problem. I think the best way to think about it is the chronology protection conjecture: something will always go wrong with a time machine.

Bullet Magnet · #46 11-12-2006, 03:40 PM

The timeline always sorts itself out in the end.

The difficulty is faced only by historians.

magic9mushroom · #47 11-12-2006, 04:09 PM

Time machines selfdestruct with a force sufficient to blow apart entire solar systems you idiot! You could use them to blow an enemy's planet to goo! No problems with timelines happen and the universe is

:

safe for historians

Bullet Magnet · #48 11-12-2006, 05:03 PM

Well, according to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which as we all know, is the definitive authority on such things:

:

One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of accidentally becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a broadminded and well-adjusted family can’t cope with. … The major problem is quite simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr Dan Streetmentioner’s Time Traveller’s Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you for instance how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. … Most readers get as far as the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up: and in fact in later editions of the book all the pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.

Fuzzle Guy · #49 11-13-2006, 12:23 AM

:

The difficulty is faced only by historians.

The Historians would face no dilema as they would have learnt everything that happened in the altered timeline, instead of what happened in reality to us. Unless of course it was the historian that changed history, but in which case, you could end up with two sets of memories. One set of memories for your life that you actually lived, and another set of memories for your life in the alternate timeline. The more you change history to more memories you come up.

magic9mushroom · #50 11-13-2006, 01:18 PM

Didn't you just read my post? Does anybody ever listen to what I say?

Havoc · #51 11-13-2006, 01:23 PM

:

Except in cases like this one
[experiment]
A bomb set to explode if it receives a particular particle is put next to a particle emitter. A time machine is used to send the particle back one hour at the bomb. So if the particle is sent, the bomb blows the emitter to bits and the particle is never sent. But if it isn't sent, then the bomb doesn't blow and the particle is sent. Paradox. End of universe.
[/experiment]
Of course, that still doesn't solve the problem. I think the best way to think about it is the chronology protection conjecture: something will always go wrong with a time machine.

Hm no that wouldn't really create a paradox, since time travel would never directly influence the same time line (see my other post about two time lines ect).

magic9mushroom · #52 11-13-2006, 01:35 PM

I think that invocation is a little far-fetched, and also, time machines explode anyway.

Bullet Magnet · #53 11-13-2006, 02:08 PM

How do you know that? None of my time machines ever exploded. That sounds like EyeSciFi to me.

magic9mushroom · #54 11-13-2006, 07:14 PM

When something goes back in time, there are two of it. Photons can do this creating infinite energy=infinite mass=infinite gravity=gravity wave that destroys time machine/turns it into a black hole.

Bullet Magnet · #55 11-14-2006, 01:26 AM

But there is only two of it for such time as one goes back in time once more. Hence, in this part of the timeline, there has always been two of it, and along with the action of going back in timefor a set peiod anyway, the difference has already been compensated for.

magic9mushroom · #56 11-14-2006, 01:20 PM

:

But there is only two of it for such time as one goes back in time once more. Hence, in this part of the timeline, there has always been two of it, and along with the action of going back in timefor a set peiod anyway, the difference has already been compensated for.

Okay, after the time it goes back, there is only one. However, this going back can happen an unlimited number of times, and can also happen with virtual photons. Read How to build a time machine by Paul Davies.

Bullet Magnet · #57 11-14-2006, 02:12 PM

Just gimme the gist of it.

Arxryl · #58 11-17-2006, 05:46 PM

Well you could always travel forward in time by knocking yourself out. It always seems like time goes by really fast when that happens. or you could sleep a long time.

Bullet Magnet · #59 11-17-2006, 08:21 PM

That's... not really time travel, is it? That's like a more violent and mentally-restricted suspended animation.

Arxryl · #60 11-17-2006, 11:17 PM

So? I mean, you'd be asleep for an hour and wake up in a completely different time! (about an hour later.)

See?.... Okay sarcasm aside I still think that time travel is a science fiction thing.