Pidesco

My dad doesn't play games anymore, but he was the one that got me playing games on a Spectrum. The whole family used to gather around to watch him play Jumping Jack.

Mamonas Assassinas - Mundo Animal

If NWN2 turns out to be as good as it's sounding, Obsidian will make me their bitch.

Wir Sind Helden - Echolot

You explain this a lot better than me. I should go brush up on my calculus. You are right. Bastard. I'm having fun with this thread. (w00t)

No. That's only valid for objects with mass travelling below the speed of light. That's why it's pointless, in a way, to discuss objects with mass moving with speed of light inside the framework of Special Relativity.

Uh, that's exactly my point. Infinite is not a real world value and thus impossible to reach. Yes it does. If you were to reach the speed of light, you would "catch up" to the photon, and therefore the photon would have a speed of zero in relation to your frame of reference, contradicting the universality of speed of light postulate. If you check the thread a few pages back, you'll see that I was defending that point of view.

This isn't accurate. Theoretically you can never reach the speed of light. According to Relativity if anything with mass was to reach the speed of light it would acquire infinite mass which is an impossibility. To say that something, other than light, reached the speed of light is to contradict one of the postulates of Special Relativity: that the speed of light is always the same for all inertial observers.

I'm gonna go with impersonation of someone who needs to get a life. )

But we could use it as a way to set up civ games, thus bringing the obsidian community closer together and thus being good for the forums. And maybe some devs are Civ fans.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to sticky this thread?

You're missing the whole point of Special Relativity! The particles always travel the same distance. s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2 This is invariant according to Special Relativity P.S.: Sorry about the notation. Go here to see it written properly.

What you're saying is that the muons are "living" longer than they should, hence they're time travelling. But what is actually happening is that time is moving slower for the muons than for us, thus appearing to us as having longer half-lives.

THe secret is in the word appears. It appears to be a paradox but Special Relativity solves that paradox.

It's called a paradox. To us it appears that the muons travelled through time at faster than light speeds, but what happens that time slows down for the muons giving the illusion of travelling through time.

What you're describing is not time travel. Those are just some of the simpler demonstrations of Special Relativity. In the case of the clocks for example, what happens is that time passed slower for the faster moving clock than for the clock left on the ground. Time travel would be if, for example, time for the clock on the plane had instantly changed from say 12:00 to 16:00 of the same day. Wrong, one does not need to travel instantaneously to travel. Take moving a distance in 3D space. One does not jump instantly, that would be teleportation. With time dilation under the effects of STR one travelling close to the speed of light would move forward faster in time and hence time travel into the future. In fact we are all time travelling into the future now. If we weren't the present would remain the present and there would be no future. Yes, time moves forward, but for each specific person their time is always moving at the same rate. For an inertial observer time in their own coordinate system always moves at the same rate, hence there is no time travelling

How enlightening.

What you're describing is not time travel. Those are just some of the simpler demonstrations of Special Relativity. In the case of the clocks for example, what happens is that time passed slower for the faster moving clock than for the clock left on the ground. Time travel would be if, for example, time for the clock on the plane had instantly changed from say 12:00 to 16:00 of the same day.

But you do. When you're going through a wormhole you're passing through a singularity which is a point in space-time with infinite curvature. And this curvature makes you accelerate up to ungodly speeds. In fact you'll be destroyed before getting to the singularity.

That's an awesome moment in the movie. >_ wir sind helden - von hier an blind

Or simply "the alteration of an object or situation". Like when the sun rises or when an egg boils or when a star smashes yet another helium and hydrogen atom together in fusion. But if you speak about alteration or an event occuring you're already speaking about time, only implicitly. You are already saying that an object was first in state n

If those 30-40 hours are filled to the brim with RPG goodness I'm not going to complain.

Actually, I think that to pass through a wormhole you have to, theoretically, pass the speed of light. So going through the wormhole is technically the same thing as what Kaftan is talking about.

I think all polls have a time limit. After that limit you can't vote anymore. I don't think the thread closes though. Anyway, I could be wrong so don't quote me on this.

If you define time as change, you will have to define change. The only definition of change I can think of is this: Change is what happens to a certain object over time. But, this definition of change makes your definition of time circular, and as such meaningless. And if so, your whole argument against time travel loses its basis.