|
Time Travel (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj_Psygnosis
OMG!!! Thread of the Century, i love this to bits...
i was reading that John Titor site, and i don't know if it's fake or not but most things he states seem very true indeed, he claims after the 2004 Olympic Games there will be no more games, i think we can base a truth or lie on this. I guess we have to wait and see if there will be any more games...if there aren't, be scared. |
yes, i don't want to speculate on the subject of whether it's true or not, but to read most of it, he makes very valid arguments and he seems to be rather calm in what he says. none of that heroical "OMFG, i'm from the future, save your souls" stuff, he seems to be lost, confused, and not sure what to do. just an interesting read. made quite a few people on the internete go wild over it though :D :D :D |
|
|
| SuperFarStucker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Um, no, you're totally wrong about this. Time is not an abstract notion invented by men, time does exist and time is a physical phenomenon. Unlike magnetism or gravity which are forces, time is a dimension. Not quite the same as other 3 dimensions, as is quite obvious, but a dimension nevertheless. Let's assume a universe with (x,y,z,t) coordinates, the first 3 being spatial coordinates, while the last one being a temporal coordinate. Now put two objects in that universe, one with coordinates (x1,y1,z1,t1) and the other one with coordinates (x1,y1,z1,t2). If time was non existant, those two objects would overlap. Now make a little experiment. Put an apple in your hand. Then drop it and put an orange in your hand. Do apple and orange overlap? My guess is no. Yet they had exactly the same spatial coordinates, while the temporal coordinate was different. Therefore time is an existand dimension, as two objects with same spatial coordinates and a different temporal coordinate do not overlap. There, I hope that explained the obvious.
We are all traveling through time, only we don't have any impact on the direction of the travel. We can, however, have a mild impact on the speed of that travel. |
First, as to John Titor:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.johntitor.com
this site is relatively new or the wayback machine for some reason isn't indexing it (unlikely).
I call bull, everything is way to vague to be true. Posting on forums? what forums? If you were a time-traveller from the future you would surely expect the time you travel back to to disbelieve your claims, so it would be rather pragmatic to predict something in the near future. His posts are from 4 years ago, supposedly... sept. 11th would be something (i would think) that he would make direct reference to.
As for time travel being possible, theoretically, yes, in practice? no way, not with our current understanding of the physical environment (or more properly, our ability to manipulate it). |
|
|
| Turbonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by djSlain
i was just wondering (all this came from public schools in california ;))
When u are in a boat going 10 mph, and the river is moving with u at 20 mph, then you should be going 30 mph. If light is traveling at C speed, can't u just blow (with breath) into a a beam of light or something and make it go C+N (n is the mph of your blow) MPH? light going faster then the speed of light...... ? |
Light does not abide with Newton's laws. Driving your car at 100mph, and shining the headlights, will NOT result in the light from the headlights to go at c+100mph. Light ALWAYS travels at a constant rate (3.00 * 10^8m/s, approx). The speed of light is the only constant in the universe, time is what bends to it. |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Turbonium
Light does not abide with Newton's laws. Driving your car at 100mph, and shining the headlights, will NOT result in the light from the headlights to go at c+100mph. Light ALWAYS travels at a constant rate (3.00 * 10^8m/s, approx). The speed of light is the only constant in the universe, time is what bends to it. |
but theoretically, if you were to travel at c, and pitch a ball at 90mph, what would be the speed of the ball?
or could it be that at c time completely stops????????!!!!! hehe. |
|
|
| Turbonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
no it's not. nobody really knows how much of a physical thing it is, but there are theories that under enormous gravitational pulls time doesn't behave like it does normally.
plus remember, if you're traveling at the speed of light, not only time goes by slower for you, everything also seems to be longer (vs. an observer). einstein's theory of relativity is very interesting, i used to read about it when i was like 10. |
Correction on that statement. You don't notice time pass by slower: time is constant in the same interial frame of reference. You don't notice it going slower, but to an observer, they will notice you not aging, etc.
I'm 99% sure on what I just said. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Turbonium
Correction on that statement. You don't notice time pass by slower: time is constant in the same interial frame of reference. You don't notice it going slower, but to an observer, they will notice you not aging, etc.
I'm 99% sure on what I just said. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. |
yes, that was implied, possibly in a bad choice of words. you never realize that you might seem different in shape or slower in your movements to the observer. i'm wondering if the theory of relativity was named so because everything relative to an observer. |
|
|
| Turbonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
but theoretically, if you were to travel at c, and pitch a ball at 90mph, what would be the speed of the ball?
or could it be that at c time completely stops????????!!!!! hehe. |
Yea exactly, time stops. The ball has no speed, just like you don't.
But wait, wtf. Maybe it's like an asymptote thing. Hitting the speed of light would mean you have zero speed, so, um, wtf... |
|
|
| Turbonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
yes, that was implied, possibly in a bad choice of words. you never realize that you might seem different in shape or slower in your movements to the observer. i'm wondering if the theory of relativity was named so because everything relative to an observer. |
Yea that's why it's named that. Relative to yourself, everything is the same. But not necessarily to an observer.
Theres some crazy examples of stuff in my physics class that we went through (amazing teacher). Let me see if I can remember the examples... |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by djSlain
let me think................................no i don't beleive..........no wait, yes..........time travel?...88 miles per hour........flux capasitor......2.1 jigawatts....carry the 2... ok ok, i made up my mind......
this guy is from the future |
btw... best post of the thread :D :D : D:D |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Turbonium
Yea exactly, time stops. The ball has no speed, just like you don't.
But wait, wtf. Maybe it's like an asymptote thing. Hitting the speed of light would mean you have zero speed, so, um, wtf... |
what exactly do you mean by that? i mean, we can only speculate what happens at c, and besides, who said c is the ceiling? i mean, what if you reach c and keep accelerating? IMO, something would definitely happen, like conversion of energy or something in that sense... maybe wormholes will open or other such stuff. something we have never experienced before physically.
btw, you just accidentally came up with the greatest quote of the week, IMHO:
| quote: | Originally posted by Turbonium
Relative to yourself, everything is the same. But not necessarily to an observer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
