|
Time Travel (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gwrmarines |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
if any of you saw the movie "time machine", which is decent up to the "what if" moment (and has one of the BEST CGI skits), it talks about a time paradox and the change of the space continuum.
alex's gf is killed, so he is motivated to finish his time machine project to go back and save her from her murderer, but after he does so, she gets killed by a horse, and then in other numerous ways.
basically, if she wasn't killed, alex wouldn't build the time machine and he wouldn't go back to save her... so in theory, she'd be dead, and alex WOULD be motivated to build the machine and save her, but then that means he doesn't build the machine... get what i'm saying? |
Afermative |
|
|
| gwrmarines |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
lets say you managed to travel into the past,
the mere fact that your there means you changed something in the world, thats 100% certain.
now lets supposed one of the actions you made there caused the younger you (the one that was there before you discovered timetravel) die.
btw, the further you go into the past increases the probability for something like that to occur.
i think you can draw your own conclusions now, cant ya?
cuervo79 has mentioned a question: "what if you were meant to go back in time",,,, well then... that isnt a legitimate question. coz most probably, as both you and i have mentioned, you would cause your own death, and then this whole "episode" wouldnt have occured at all,, and if thats so, then you have just eliminated our entire universe by that action.
in response to whiskers': "that is one of them time paradoxes that we can't answer until we try them out.
why do you people always need to have everything explained to you? i repeat, even the most genius physicists can't prove this stuff. so you can believe it or not, but don't dismiss it just because you don't have proof."
well,, to start with,,, im not dismissing it completely (because of the massive lack of knowledge and/or perceptive abilities we have as humans in the year 2003), im just dismissing it for the time being,
philosophically speaking, time travel cannot/have not/is not/will not exist in our universe based on the mere fact that this universe does exist (time travel will 100% guaranteed change something in our universe, and such a change will eliminate our universe and everything that occured/occurs/will occur in it)
regarding the john titor part: what proof do we have that he actually made those predictions prior to those events hapenning?
oh!!! how could i forgotten this?!
you are all talking about time travel in refference to the speed of light, but wouldnt that just be "viewing" the past/future?
why arent you discussing time travel in refference to the speed of sound then?
just imagine, walking around in the world with an auditory time lapse of about 2 minutes,, damn,, that would be hell'a confusing., wouldnt it? :D
and finally, to partially discredit what i just said, have a look to my sig,, coz im still supporting that quote of mine by all means |
Blah, Happy now? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| very much so, thanks :haha: |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
why is nobody reffering to my post?
as if it was off-topic or something,,,,
i just wanted to know if i made any sense to you folks |
attention whore :rolleyes::D
and whoever posted about the theory where we already invented the time machine, but people from the future came and removed all traces of it... (couldn't find the exact post) we'll have to dismiss that conspiracy, because it poses a paradox. if you remove traces of the time machine in the past, then how would you go back from the future to remove them?
one more thing about time travel & "back to the future" - remember all those photos changing and m.j. fox disappearing and ? that's not really possible. think in terms of conservation of energy. i kinda don't have time to explain it, but it seems to work. |
|
|
| whiskers |
E=mc^2
time dilation sucks.
if you're moving in a train at c and throw a ball up at speed v, doesn't the ball also have a horizontal velocity component?
don't forget the lorentz factor equation, 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
thus, if you reach speed very close to c, the time in your reference frame will barely move and you'll have an immense amount of mass, and you'll also be shrunk in the direction of your movement to about several molecules. |
|
|
| Turbonium |
| I take it you're taking physics right now... |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by Turbonium
I take it you're taking physics right now... |
HEEE, nah, all my previous arguments about relativity were based on what i read when i was 10, but today in astronomy we went over relativity and if tehre's one thing that course is useful for, it's the fact that i had a chance to read over the explanation of einstein's theory in the book :D |
|
|
| Turbonium |
| I don't feel like thinking right now, I'll get into this discussion a bit later maybe. Like another day. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
E=mc^2
time dilation sucks.
if you're moving in a train at c and throw a ball up at speed v, doesn't the ball also have a horizontal velocity component?
don't forget the lorentz factor equation, 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
thus, if you reach speed very close to c, the time in your reference frame will barely move and you'll have an immense amount of mass, and you'll also be shrunk in the direction of your movement to about several molecules. |
Actually, you'd be expanded in the direction of your movement. And you'd still have the same molecular structure, only the molecules in your body would appear to be wider when observed from the outside than they would seem to you. And the mass increase is only apparent, because it takes you more energy to accelerate.
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
oh!!! how could i forgotten this?!
you are all talking about time travel in refference to the speed of light, but wouldnt that just be "viewing" the past/future?
why arent you discussing time travel in refference to the speed of sound then?
just imagine, walking around in the world with an auditory time lapse of about 2 minutes,, damn,, that would be hell'a confusing., wouldnt it? |
No, you wouldn't be just viewing past/future. If you'd travel at light speed, time for you would not just appear to stop, it really would stop. It's different than it is with sound. Sound waves are merely turbulences in substances. Not that it matters to this discussion, but you can't objectively measure the speed of sound since it's different in every substance, and in vacuum it doesn't exist. |
|
|
| -=M=- |
did anyone else read about a year or so ago that the speed of light is quite similar to the way sound moves?
in the fact that light actually appears to slow down slightly the further it has travelled / what objects it has passed thru etc
just something i remembered... |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by -=M=-
did anyone else read about a year or so ago that the speed of light is quite similar to the way sound moves?
in the fact that light actually appears to slow down slightly the further it has travelled / what objects it has passed thru etc
just something i remembered... |
yes, i remember hearing something about light / photons traveling in waves...
+1 for you for resurrecting this thread |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by -=M=-
did anyone else read about a year or so ago that the speed of light is quite similar to the way sound moves?
in the fact that light actually appears to slow down slightly the further it has travelled / what objects it has passed thru etc
just something i remembered... |
:rolleyes: where does this come from?
Every single type of wave gets attenuated with distance and going through objects of different density.
However, sound is a longitudinal pressure wave, and light is a transverse electromagnetic wave. The fact that they are both "waves" is as far as that similarity goes - drawing any other conclusions would be a syllogistic fallacy. |
|
|
|
|
