Judge Hades Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) Unless there was something or someone (or a group of people) governing time travel and regulating it through a set of laws in which they enforce. This is of course depends on if the future has already happened and set in its own existance. Perhaps only now exists because we are going through the first run of this univers's existence. Edited January 12, 2006 by Judge Hades
Laozi Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Unless there was something or someone (or a group of people) governing time travel and regulating it through a set of laws in which they enforce. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You mean like Jean Claude Van Dam? People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
dufflover Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 I say no because time "just passes" and is not something manipulatable. I also think all that relative time passing stuff (like going faster or slower, or how in StarGate they had people near a wormhole "moving slowly") is also kinda stupid but I haven't read too much into it. What's so special about that particle in the galaxy exceeding it's half-life - I mean it's going so bloody fast anyway ofcourse it'll get here quickly - plus it's source is all theoretical anyway. Anyway yeh, my main thing is that time is not something you can access and manipulate. Pure Pazaak - The Stand-alone Multiplayer Pazaak Game (link to Obsidian board thread) Pure Pazaak website (big thank you to fingolfin)
Moose Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 If you don't understand the muon experiment that's okay - the atomic clock experiment should be easier for you to understand. Time actually slows down for the clock on the move. We have hard proof for it. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts
alanschu Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 I got the impression from my Special Relativity teacher (Doug Gingrich) that it's a misnomer to say that time "slows down." Due to travelling at a fast speed, with the relationship between space and time, time affects the person at a different rate. Theoretically, travelling at the speed of light puts you in stasis, but it's still not "time travel," it's relativity.
Moose Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Look it's just a matter of common sense. If it works for a clock then there's no reason it can't work for a human being. If I wanted to get to some point in the future faster than I am now, I merely have to travel fast. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts
Diamond Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Theoretically, travelling at the speed of light puts you in stasis, but it's still not "time travel," it's relativity. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why not? It depends on how you define time travel.
Pidesco Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 (edited) Theoretically, travelling at the speed of light puts you in stasis, but it's still not "time travel," it's relativity. 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. Edited January 12, 2006 by Soulseeker "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist I am Dan Quayle of the Romans. I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands. Heja Sverige!! Everyone should cuffawkle more. The wrench is your friend.
213374U Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 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. "Infinite" is simply the limit of the equation which expresses mass as a function of speed, when speed approaches c. It's not a real world value. What is an impossibility is to accelerate something that has a mass approaching infinite, to the speed of light, as according to Newtonian physics, at a certain point that would require more energy than there is in the universe, when the mass was close enough to c. All of that, again, from a classic physics and thermodynamics standpoint. The effects of time dilation can be experienced at speeds much more reasonable than c, though. 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. Er, no. That postulate in particular doesn't imply that you can't reach the speed of light. At any rate, to say that relativistic time dilation qualifies as time travel is misleading at best, and inaccurate at worst. It does only work one way, for starters. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Judge Hades Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Time naturally flows forward. It is how the particles and molecules that make up everything work. There are theoretical particles that go faster than light called tachyons. Tachyons are particles that exist outside the normal space/time continuum, theoretically speaking. Now since we have pasitrons, negarons, and the such it should stand to reason that there would be anti-tachyons. Particles that act as tachyons but in reverse order. Harnessing the power and use of tachyons and antitachyons would, could allow time travel, theoretically speaking. I just think we should have functioning hyperdrive before we worry about traveling through time.
Pidesco Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 "Infinite" is simply the limit of the equation which expresses mass as a function of speed, when speed approaches c. It's not a real world value. Uh, that's exactly my point. Infinite is not a real world value and thus impossible to reach. Er, no. That postulate in particular doesn't imply that you can't reach the speed of light. 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. At any rate, to say that relativistic time dilation qualifies as time travel is misleading at best, and inaccurate at worst. It does only work one way, for starters. If you check the thread a few pages back, you'll see that I was defending that point of view. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist I am Dan Quayle of the Romans. I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands. Heja Sverige!! Everyone should cuffawkle more. The wrench is your friend.
Moose Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Er, no. That postulate in particular doesn't imply that you can't reach the speed of light. 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No no no. That's the whole point of relativity. If you were to reach the speed of light the photon would still appear to be travelling away from you at the same rate - hence why time dilation was derived to stop any laws of mass and enegry conservation being violated. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts
Pidesco Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 No no no. That's the whole point of relativity. If you were to reach the speed of light the photon would still appear to be travelling away from you at the same rate - hence why time dilation was derived to stop any laws of mass and enegry conservation being violated. 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. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist I am Dan Quayle of the Romans. I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands. Heja Sverige!! Everyone should cuffawkle more. The wrench is your friend.
213374U Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Time naturally flows forward. It is how the particles and molecules that make up everything work. There are theoretical particles that go faster than light called tachyons. Tachyons are particles that exist outside the normal space/time continuum, theoretically speaking. Now since we have pasitrons, negarons, and the such it should stand to reason that there would be anti-tachyons. Particles that act as tachyons but in reverse order. Harnessing the power and use of tachyons and antitachyons would, could allow time travel, theoretically speaking. I just think we should have functioning hyperdrive before we worry about traveling through time. Wow. Just wow. Uh, that's exactly my point. Infinite is not a real world value and thus impossible to reach. Right. I know what you mean. Taking equations literally isn't a very good way of explaining things, though. You don't really have "infinite" mass, as it's not exactly infinite, but a constant number divided by an amount that approaches zero. And while in calculus a constant divided by zero is considered "infinite", infinite is not a number, and in this case "infinite" mass just makes no sense. And, as I explained in my previous post, the energy considerations would prevent the equation from reaching the limit anyway. 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. No. Photons have a speed of c, regardless of the speed of the observer. You just can't "catch up" to photons, but it's not because you can't reach their speed (which you can't, but for other reasons), but because of relativity. Applying your logic, you wouldn't be able to reach any speed greater than zero, because your relative speed in relation to the photon would be less than c, and that contradicts the postulate. You are applying an euclidean interpretation to a relativistic effect. Those two don't work well together. What that postulate does imply, however, is that c is the maximum observable speed in the universe. If you check the thread a few pages back, you'll see that I was defending that point of view. Did you? Well, we agree on that, then. That last statement wasn't aimed at you in particular, anyway. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Musopticon? Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 "What year is it? Who's the president?! AAAGH!!" kirottu said: I was raised by polar bears. I had to fight against blood thirsty wolves and rabid penguins to get my food. Those who were too weak to survive were sent to Sweden. It has made me the man I am today. A man who craves furry hentai. So let us go and embrace the rustling smells of unseen worlds
Judge Hades Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Did I wow you with my complete and total inane understanding of physic, numberman?
213374U Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Well, I think I broke my brain. Thanks for nothing! - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Lucius Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Yuri: WHY should I be content to control one nation, when I can control the whole world, Mr. President? DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
213374U Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 If the costumes used in that game aren't reason enough as to why you shouldn't mess with the past, then nothing is. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Judge Hades Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 If I could time travel I would go back in time kidnap Jesus and bring him to the modern world and watch the fun.
Pidesco Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Right. I know what you mean. Taking equations literally isn't a very good way of explaining things, though. You don't really have "infinite" mass, as it's not exactly infinite, but a constant number divided by an amount that approaches zero. And while in calculus a constant divided by zero is considered "infinite", infinite is not a number, and in this case "infinite" mass just makes no sense.And, as I explained in my previous post, the energy considerations would prevent the equation from reaching the limit anyway. You explain this a lot better than me. I should go brush up on my calculus. No. Photons have a speed of c, regardless of the speed of the observer. You just can't "catch up" to photons, but it's not because you can't reach their speed (which you can't, but for other reasons), but because of relativity. Applying your logic, you wouldn't be able to reach any speed greater than zero, because your relative speed in relation to the photon would be less than c, and that contradicts the postulate. You are applying an euclidean interpretation to a relativistic effect. Those two don't work well together. What that postulate does imply, however, is that c is the maximum observable speed in the universe. You are right. Bastard. I'm having fun with this thread. (w00t) "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian tourist I am Dan Quayle of the Romans. I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands. Heja Sverige!! Everyone should cuffawkle more. The wrench is your friend.
Lucius Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 If the costumes used in that game aren't reason enough as to why you shouldn't mess with the past, then nothing is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you saying Red Alert was out of style? Look at the cute hammer and sickle. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
213374U Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 I'm having fun with this thread. (w00t) I think we finally scattered that scruffy, unscientific crowd. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now