|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 23, 2004 3:51:29 GMT -5
If we can teleport. (Even though they may screw it up and you'll be a pile of sludge) I don't see why time travel could be that differen't even though we don't kow if there actually time. What is another's present could be another person's future. It is so complex that I don't think science can explain it. Even if we3 were to hypotheticly travel at the speed of light we would be hypotheticly just moving really fast. Not jumping timelines. Whoa... My brain just exploded.... I watch WAY to many science programs... darn my good science grades... I hate using my brain during the summer....
|
|
|
|
Post by ruben on Aug 23, 2004 4:18:21 GMT -5
If we can teleport. (Even though they may screw it up and you'll be a pile of sludge) I don't see why time travel could be that differen't even though we don't kow if there actually time. What is another's present could be another person's future. It is so complex that I don't think science can explain it. Even if we3 were to hypotheticly travel at the speed of light we would be hypotheticly just moving really fast. Not jumping timelines. Whoa... My brain just exploded.... I watch WAY to many science programs... darn my good science grades... I hate using my brain during the summer.... What you just said, IMO, makes no sense at all, sorry. Well, technically, we are always travelling through time... time is always moving, and we're always moving with it. The time travel that you speak of, though - WHY would we want to change things? All of those ancient wars and events - as horrible and brutal as they may be - are what has created our world, and formed each and every person. We have been changed by World War II and always will be. We have been changed by 9/11 and always will be. Take it away, and we're completely different. We haven't seen the hardships that made us strong, the grief that united us. And since we would be weak and divided, some other problem, possibly something worse, would take place. It wouldn't solve anything. I think that if there is an issue now that you wish you could go back and change, maybe you should focus on how you CAN change it now. The present is as much an opportunity as the past. Why go through the trouble of changing the past to fix the present when you can change the present to fix the future? Everything you said has to do with logic, of course you are right because there couldn't be another explanation. But you must also see that time isn't always equal. For they once put two atom clocks EXACTLY the same, the put one in the basement and one on the attic. After a time they saw that the two clocks had a different time. It was only a matter of seconds, but they were different from each other... They saw that the one lying in the basement had less time then the one on the attic. And this gives some interesting information, because if you would live your whole life downstairs, you would age less... - Ruben V. |
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Aug 23, 2004 5:40:25 GMT -5
What you just said, IMO, makes no sense at all, sorry. Everything you said has to do with logic, of course you are right because there couldn't be another explanation. But you must also see that time isn't always equal. For they once put two atom clocks EXACTLY the same, the put one in the basement and one on the attic. After a time they saw that the two clocks had a different time. It was only a matter of seconds, but they were different from each other... They saw that the one lying in the basement had less time then the one on the attic. And this gives some interesting information, because if you would live your whole life downstairs, you would age less... - Ruben V. ... And IMO, that makes no sense to me at all... Sure, sometimes we want to travel back in time - like the time I got two Fish Neggs in Neggsweeper and I died on the last, very very last negg but that's beside the point ^^; - but time would probably, yeah, be like what Rowling described it as. Why in the world is it the speed of light that's so special, BTW? Oh, I believe it's called a paradox. Linny once did some speculation on the Meridell thing and it severely hurt my brain... Oh, and yeah. Almost forgot. www.deviantart.com/view/5715884/Another reason why we should all grovel before Kiddo and Bongo. |
|
|
|
Post by ruben on Aug 23, 2004 5:58:51 GMT -5
... And IMO, that makes no sense to me at all... Sure, sometimes we want to travel back in time - like the time I got two Fish Neggs in Neggsweeper and I died on the last, very very last negg but that's beside the point ^^; - but time would probably, yeah, be like what Rowling described it as. Why in the world is it the speed of light that's so special, BTW? Oh, I believe it's called a paradox. Linny once did some speculation on the Meridell thing and it severely hurt my brain... Oh, and yeah. Almost forgot. www.deviantart.com/view/5715884/Another reason why we should all grovel before Kiddo and Bongo. Why do you not understand? That post was nothing ells then existing information. Well, light is a special thing, it is not just electricity. I maybe don’t believe myself that the speed is the key, but that were the things Einstein explained and such, and it would be hard to ignore him. But okay, this is the discussion board and everybody has his own beliefs. But the real ‘key’ to travelling in time is going to other dimensions, other times… It is hard to understand, but there surely are other dimensions. Like for example: We could be living right on the spot of another world. A world made of totally other bits, things we can not begin to understand. We have no name for them, we can not smell them, we can not see them… Not everything that exists is known to us. And if that would be, those other beings wouldn’t know us either, they are maybe talking right now about the same things, that there is another world… PS: I have no begun to tell my own theories. - Ruben V. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2004 10:05:18 GMT -5
I don't think time even exists.
It's just a bunch of measurements made up by humans to keep order.
It's impossible to travel through time. Sure, something that moves faster ages slower (for example, a moving clock ticks slower), but when it arrives at it's destination, it's future self won't be there.
I just don't see time as an existing structure. What's done is done, what's gone is gone. Matter has changed. You can't change it back.
|
|
|
|
Post by ruben on Aug 23, 2004 10:28:21 GMT -5
I don't think time even exists. It's just a bunch of measurements made up by humans to keep order. It's impossible to travel through time. Sure, something that moves faster ages slower (for example, a moving clock ticks slower), but when it arrives at it's destination, it's future self won't be there. I just don't see time as an existing structure. What's done is done, what's gone is gone. Matter has changed. You can't change it back. Huh?! The word time dos not exist, yes. But time surely exists, not as a name or object, and it indeed is the name for aging things, but it exists. Time always exists, because if time didn't exist, everything would happen at once. If we didn't have time, we wouldn't exist. - Ruben V. |
|
|
|
Post by sollunaestrella on Aug 23, 2004 10:44:04 GMT -5
Everything you said has to do with logic, of course you are right because there couldn't be another explanation. But you must also see that time isn't always equal. For they once put two atom clocks EXACTLY the same, the put one in the basement and one on the attic. After a time they saw that the two clocks had a different time. It was only a matter of seconds, but they were different from each other... They saw that the one lying in the basement had less time then the one on the attic. And this gives some interesting information, because if you would live your whole life downstairs, you would age less... - Ruben V. So you're saying that when you're in the attic more time passes in the same amount of time as opposed to the basement? Now, that just defies logic. A second is a man-made measurement of time. Ten seconds can pass in the attic, but those same ten seconds have to have passed in the basement too. Even if time goes at different speeds from one floor to the other, then atomic clocks wouldn't have the sense to know it. In our world, a second is more or less a constant. Heck, time might be passing us all right by right now - we could be traveling faster than light for all we know - but it's still only been five seconds. Well, I agree with TheComedian somewhat about time not existing. I think that time is a dimension (by the reasoning that an object might be "three-dimensional," but if it does not exist for any amount of time, then it is not - complete, I guess you might say). But I think time as we know it is not real - such as seconds and minutes and hours, the way that we've divided up that dimension to keep track of it. Even days and years, although they're based upon the movement of the earth, are just how humans have taken chunks of the plane to organize it. Similar to how a person manipulates space when he is designing a house and planning its rooms with measurements. With that said, I really do find it hard to believe that "experiment" is true. I did a quick bit of research on how atomic clocks work: " An atomic clock is a clock that uses the resonance frequencies of atoms as its resonator. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the resonator is 'regulated by the frequency of the microwave electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by the quantum transition (energy change) of an atom or molecule.'
"The advantage of this approach is that atoms resonate at extremely consistent frequencies. If you take any atom of cesium and ask it to resonate, it will resonate at exactly the same frequency as any other atom of cesium. Cesium-133 oscillates at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. This sort of accuracy is completely different from the accuracy of a quartz clock. In a quartz clock, the quartz crystal is manufactured so that its oscillating frequency is close to some standard frequency; but manufacturing tolerances cause every crystal to be slightly different, and things like temperature will change the frequency. A cesium atom always resonates at the same known frequency -- that is what makes atomic clocks so precise." -http://www.howstuffworks.com/question40.htm So an atomic clock asks atoms to resonate. But atoms always resonate at the same frequency. Meaning that unless the atomic clocks used two different types of atoms so that they were juuust slightly apart, then what you said had happened is impossible. Frequency is a cycle per unit of time. If time was going faster, then would the atom notice? Our second wouldn't! But where did you hear about this experiment? Your source isn't necessarily credible - if you just heard it from a friend, then I would have good reason to doubt its truth. Plus there is always human error - could the clock ever have started exactly the same, anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by ruben on Aug 23, 2004 11:17:45 GMT -5
So you're saying that when you're in the attic more time passes in the same amount of time as opposed to the basement? Now, that just defies logic. A second is a man-made measurement of time. Ten seconds can pass in the attic, but those same ten seconds have to have passed in the basement too. Even if time goes at different speeds from one floor to the other, then atomic clocks wouldn't have the sense to know it. In our world, a second is more or less a constant. Heck, time might be passing us all right by right now - we could be traveling faster than light for all we know - but it's still only been five seconds. Well, I agree with TheComedian somewhat about time not existing. I think that time is a dimension (by the reasoning that an object might be "three-dimensional," but if it does not exist for any amount of time, then it is not - complete, I guess you might say). But I think time as we know it is not real - such as seconds and minutes and hours, the way that we've divided up that dimension to keep track of it. Even days and years, although they're based upon the movement of the earth, are just how humans have taken chunks of the plane to organize it. Similar to how a person manipulates space when he is designing a house and planning its rooms with measurements. With that said, I really do find it hard to believe that "experiment" is true. I did a quick bit of research on how atomic clocks work: " An atomic clock is a clock that uses the resonance frequencies of atoms as its resonator. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the resonator is 'regulated by the frequency of the microwave electromagnetic radiation emitted or absorbed by the quantum transition (energy change) of an atom or molecule.'
"The advantage of this approach is that atoms resonate at extremely consistent frequencies. If you take any atom of cesium and ask it to resonate, it will resonate at exactly the same frequency as any other atom of cesium. Cesium-133 oscillates at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second. This sort of accuracy is completely different from the accuracy of a quartz clock. In a quartz clock, the quartz crystal is manufactured so that its oscillating frequency is close to some standard frequency; but manufacturing tolerances cause every crystal to be slightly different, and things like temperature will change the frequency. A cesium atom always resonates at the same known frequency -- that is what makes atomic clocks so precise." -http://www.howstuffworks.com/question40.htm So an atomic clock asks atoms to resonate. But atoms always resonate at the same frequency. Meaning that unless the atomic clocks used two different types of atoms so that they were juuust slightly apart, then what you said had happened is impossible. Frequency is a cycle per unit of time. If time was going faster, then would the atom notice? Our second wouldn't! But where did you hear about this experiment? Your source isn't necessarily credible - if you just heard it from a friend, then I would have good reason to doubt its truth. Plus there is always human error - could the clock ever have started exactly the same, anyway? I know it might be hard to understand, but the test was correct. I found it on a scientific website, recommended by our universities and such, so I think their research is reliable  But okay, let’s 'think' that we were not sure: time can be different, because time (in this example aging) relies on many objects, such as speed, gravity and so on. I don’t know the specific explanation of course (I’m not a scientist) but I certainly believe that it is possible. I also find it weird that you never heard of it before. I’ll give you another experiment: If one person that has an identical twin goes to outer space (in a spaceship of course) and the other one stays on the earth, they say that when the one that was in space for a while comes back to earth, then that he or she is younger then the twin that stayed on Earth. - Ruben V. |
|
Stal first day of classes
Guest
|
Post by Stal first day of classes on Aug 23, 2004 11:39:45 GMT -5
I find that Atomic Clock test VERY hard to believe.
But here's one that is similar. It's not in the basement and attic, but goes to prove the faster you go the slower time has an effect on you. They shipped one atomic clock off somewhere as fast as it could possibly go. When it arrived at the destination it was found that the one that was shipped off was the tiniest fraction of a second off of the one that stayed still. Has to do with Einsteinian physics and relativety.
By the way, Rueben, I hate to say it...but until you get to a point where you can describe your theories in-depth and understand them yourself, as well as get a good basis in Physics...it's hard to take those serious. You can still have opinions...but they can't be classified as informed opinions. No offense is intended by that at all, you hopefully understand what I'm trying to so.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreenmooseofdoom on Aug 23, 2004 15:45:03 GMT -5
It has been proven that the faster you travel, the 'slower' time goes. Ruben's second example about the twins is correct- if you fly around in a super-fast spaceship for 20 years, then you'll return to earth with very little signs of aging, while everyone else will be all old.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Aug 23, 2004 16:32:19 GMT -5
It has been proven that the faster you travel, the 'slower' time goes. Ruben's second example about the twins is correct- if you fly around in a super-fast spaceship for 20 years, then you'll return to earth with very little signs of aging, while everyone else will be all old. Yeah, that one is true. If you get fast enough, you can age two years while everyone else ages twenty. Which is a kind of time travel. The thing is, if travelling in time forwards means going fast, then how do you travel backwards? You can't just go slower  I typed something similar earlier but never posted it, because I really have no idea about how time fits into everything. I don't have a strong enough grasp of Physcis |
|
|
|
Post by ruben on Aug 23, 2004 17:01:17 GMT -5
The thing is, if travelling in time forwards means going fast, then how do you travel backwards? You can't just go slower Well, as I said before, time is a dimension on its own. If you go as fast as light, then you don't just freeze for 10 years and then suddenly stop there. No, you go between dimensions, or at least, that is what I think. And this also brings me to one of my confusing theories: If you travel in time for about... 10 years (2014) and then appear in that time area, then how will you be? There you have two choices: Theory 1 (the one I don't believe in): If you are there, then it means you go back in the 'time device' you came in and go back to the present. If you are not there, it means something will happen in the 10 years or you won't return with the 'time device' Theory 2 (the one I believe): You will be there for 100%, unless of course you died of a disease in those 10 years, but even if you don't go back with your 'time device', because I belief EVERY little piece of time is separate. The thing that happens in one dimension won't inflect anything on the other time. But of course, I noticed some flaws in my theory. Because if you go to that other dimension, you can't be there (if you didn't return) because in that time 10 years earlier you also left... So then again, the 1st theory is more logical, but then again, the 2d theory isn't totally impossible. Because how can we know what is impossible?... - Ruben V. |
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Aug 23, 2004 19:00:39 GMT -5
Alright! A temporal discussion!
Well guys, if there is anything we know about time travel, it is that we may be better off without it. Yes, it's true that we could use it to do good in this world, but imagine if time-travel fell into the wrong hands? For all we know, John McCain really won the 2000 presidential election, but all we remember is that Dubya was the candidate, and he became president. I use McCain as an example, because he could've been a better choice than Gore, Kerry, and Dubya combined.
Getting back to the topic at hand, I think that time is unchangeable. As it was pointed out earlier, things happen regardless of what we do to change them. However, as Stal stated, it is all speculative. It is pretty obvious that until we have physical proof, it will be difficult to assume time travel exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2004 20:54:45 GMT -5
Well, as I said before, time is a dimension on its own. If you go as fast as light, then you don't just freeze for 10 years and then suddenly stop there. No, you go between dimensions, or at least, that is what I think. And this also brings me to one of my confusing theories: If you travel in time for about... 10 years (2014) and then appear in that time area, then how will you be? There you have two choices: Theory 1 (the one I don't believe in): If you are there, then it means you go back in the 'time device' you came in and go back to the present. If you are not there, it means something will happen in the 10 years or you won't return with the 'time device' Theory 2 (the one I believe): You will be there for 100%, unless of course you died of a disease in those 10 years, but even if you don't go back with your 'time device', because I belief EVERY little piece of time is separate. The thing that happens in one dimension won't inflect anything on the other time. But of course, I noticed some flaws in my theory. Because if you go to that other dimension, you can't be there (if you didn't return) because in that time 10 years earlier you also left... So then again, the 1st theory is more logical, but then again, the 2d theory isn't totally impossible. Because how can we know what is impossible?... - Ruben V. The way I see it, time travel to the past is impossible. The past is done with, it is irreversible. Going back would mean changing matter and energy themselves back to how they were before you travelled to the future. Travelling to the "future" is possible if you go fast enough, but your "future self" won't be there because you can't go back in time and continue your life to become your "future self." |
|
|
|
Post by ruben on Aug 24, 2004 3:02:27 GMT -5
The way I see it, time travel to the past is impossible. The past is done with, it is irreversible. Going back would mean changing matter and energy themselves back to how they were before you travelled to the future. Travelling to the "future" is possible if you go fast enough, but your "future self" won't be there because you can't go back in time and continue your life to become your "future self." So you are obviously a believer of my first theory, the one I don't believe. Because you see time as one line of happenings, I believe that time is divided in dimensions. And so, by altering the past in another dimension (in that dimension, the past is present) and then you do some stuff normally nobody should have done, you are altering nothing. Because dimensions don't swap times with each other, of course. Okay, that present past (the one where you did some things you shouldn't have done) will have a different future of course, but nothing will be altered as it already was... - Ruben V. |
|
But okay, let’s 'think' that we were not sure: time can be different, because time (in this example aging) relies on many objects, such as speed, gravity and so on. I don’t know the specific explanation of course (I’m not a scientist) but I certainly believe that it is possible. 
