It is impossible to travel into the past...

Post by **Blaze** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 7:30 am

Kinda of entertaining to think that Einstein was "arguably" one of the smartest intellects the world has ever known, but we, a bunch of high schoolers and college students with degrees in the liberal arts pretend to know relativity better than him... Anyone else notice a problem here?

Who said I know better than him? I'm using his theories to support my own.

Blaze, I'm sorry, but no.

And, your support for that is.... ? At least I gave and supported my reasoning. It's just a goofball theory, but from anything said thusfar, it's sound.

Relativity and quantum physics are just theories with complex mathematical equations surrounding them... That means you can prove them wrong, or find loop holes to get around them...

Didn't I tell you to get to work debunking them? I never said you couldn't possibly be right.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:11 am

Nitz Walsh, yea, sure ! it's THAT EASY !

blaze.
what people are trying to say is - that by speeding everything up you can bring time (of everything in relevance to you) to a halt. however you cannot speed it up SO fast that it will start moving backward (in relevance to you) because that is the speed in which every matter turns to energy.... and that can't be good...

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:58 pm

It's not sound. It's stupid. It's 1st grade imagination hamfistedly (if exuberantly) applied to physics and mathematics. It's just awful.

Gowerlypuff · Post by **Gowerlypuff** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 3:58 pm

It is, indeed, very childlish. However, like star trek and the matrix, it seems plausible. It's all in the explanation.

Anyway:
1) why bother speeding up three of the spacial dimensions and just speed up time?

2) as far as I'm aware, time is not currently a tangiable dimension, much like the other 8 (or so) spacial ones we have other than the 3 we can interact with

3) speeding up the spacial dimensions would be no different to speeding yourself up in the other direction. It's all a Frame Of Reference thing.

4) whilst you MAY BE in the future (or a mess) if you sped yourself up like that, you'd be quite a long way away, too.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 5:08 pm

way away, too.

if you travel far enough (the world being round and all) you'd be back in square one in no time !

TDINTBL · Post by **TDINTBL** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:48 pm

If you travel far enough period you'll end up in the same spot, so said the brain hemoragingly insanely hard to understand idiot's version of relativity. Interesting to think that the universe has no edge, and space itself is bent into a ball, gives a weird visual image for sure.

Nitz Walsh · Post by **Nitz Walsh** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:54 pm

If the universe has no edge and you end up where you were if you travel far enough, if you walk just 1 foot, you're not only as close as you can get from where you were, you're as far from the place you were as you can get.

TDINTBL · Post by **TDINTBL** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:03 pm

Owwww and thats why relativity hurts my head....

Post by **Blaze** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:57 am

Finally got some decent, evaluated replies.

It's not that I honestly believed it would work. Namely, and if for no other reason, Accellerating all the mass and energy of all dimensions would require many other universes worth of energy to power it (infinite, really).

Mostly, I just wanted to see which people honestly take the time to evaluate and reply to those that post. The idea, if you read and think about it, makes some logical sense. But mostly, yes, it is just stupid. If SOME of you had bothered to read, you would even say that I said it was just goofball theory for fun. Have you never heard of speculation for speculation's sake?

I took an idea (Time Dialation), and tried to apply it in a new way. I got something that feasibly, if you could accelerate the past, would possibly work. Not really, but the idea has an element of truth to it.

Some of you are far too cynical. I knew that already of course, but honestly, it's getting worse.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:52 am

Blaze, so.... you're saying you said something wrong. knew it was wrong and impossible... and expected people to take you seriously ?
that sounds relatively stupid to me

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. plato

Gowerlypuff · Post by **Gowerlypuff** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:45 pm

[quote="CyberEd";p="439338"]

way away, too.

if you travel far enough (the world being round and all) you'd be back in square one in no time ![/quote]

Our survey says *elecronic fart noise*
The relativity of this is based on velocities, rather than speeds, so if you go round the world you would not be affected by any time dilation as your velocities relative to where you started would be constantly changing.

Posted Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:48 pm:

[quote="TDINTBL";p="439372"]If you travel far enough period you'll end up in the same spot, so said the brain hemoragingly insanely hard to understand idiot's version of relativity. Interesting to think that the universe has no edge, and space itself is bent into a ball, gives a weird visual image for sure.[/quote]

I don't think this is true.
I believe the universe has an edge, but it's increasing in size at the speed of light (it started at 0 volume and, since the big bang, has been expanding at that speed). Therefore I believe that if you travel in any one direction (relative to a point) you will always be moving away from it.

Post by **Blaze** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:11 pm

TDINTBL wrote (View Post):
If you travel far enough period you'll end up in the same spot, so said the brain hemoragingly insanely hard to understand idiot's version of relativity. Interesting to think that the universe has no edge, and space itself is bent into a ball, gives a weird visual image for sure.

I don't think this is true.
I believe the universe has an edge, but it's increasing in size at the speed of light (it started at 0 volume and, since the big bang, has been expanding at that speed). Therefore I believe that if you travel in any one direction (relative to a point) you will always be moving away from it.

Right you are. Space is NOT bent into a ball. Space is either Open (kinda potato chip shaped) or flat. Space has less than infinite density.

Blaze, so.... you're saying you said something wrong. knew it was wrong and impossible... and expected people to take you seriously ?
that sounds relatively stupid to me

Not at all. You could stand to read closer. I knew it was impossible, but not theoretically wrong. Because it was impossible, some people didn't take the time to evaluate it otherwise.

Grumlen · Post by **Grumlen** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 7:37 pm

Blaze, you REALLY need to try studying relativity before you say things like this. theres a difference between having someone travel slowly through time relative to you are and having someone travel in the past relative to you. If I were to travel through time slower than you are, then I would not be travelling into your past, I would be STAYING in it. Sure, you may think this is semantics, but when you get into these sorts of things semantics is VERY important. Especially when you consider how complex things can get when you have multiple frames of reference. I think I'll pull in a physical example to shw you what I mean:

Imagine 2 trains travelling side-by-side at the same speed. They can't stop, because the time equivalent to that would be travelling the speed of light and with the current theories that is impossible. They also can't go infinitely fast, because that would be the equivalent of hitting absolute zero, and with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that also is impossible. Now, lets say one train starts moving faster than the other train. Because both trains are moving forward, and we know this, then it is EASY to realize that the slower train is NOT moving backwards, but simply falling behind. You have to temper what you say about your frame of reference with what you already know about your frame of reference.

In fact, as another example of how you have to incorporate this knowledge, lets say you and I are each in a spaceship that is travelling the speed of light. these 2 ships are travelling directly at eachother and will hit in a head-on collision. Oddly enough, both of us will see the other travelling at JUST the speed of light. However, if we had insturments to measure the force of impact, we would find that it would be DOUBLE what we would normally calculate if we did NOT factor in what we already know about our own frame of reference.

So, like I said, getting into relativity and dealing with the various frames of reference can be rather confusing. And trust me on this. I don't know how much you know on the subject, but I at least only have about 1 year left to graduate with a degree in physics. A lot of it seems self-contradictory, yes, but when you start getting down the to truth of how it all works it starts to make a lot more sense.

Post by **Blaze** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:50 pm

Blaze, you REALLY need to try studying relativity before you say things like this. theres a difference between having someone travel slowly through time relative to you are and having someone travel in the past relative to you. If I were to travel through time slower than you are, then I would not be travelling into your past, I would be STAYING in it.

But that's just where everyone is misjudging what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you speed up current time to the point where it slows down seconds for you. I'm talking about all time. If I speed up the past, present, and future, so that each second takes only half a second (accelerate time), then past seconds will move ahead and pass me. In one second of my time, I will find myself back at the same second I started. In two seconds of my time, I will find myself one second back from where I started (etc).

Basically all I'm saying is, if you can slow down time (sans yourself) to travel into the future, why's it utterly impossible to speed up time (sans yourself) to travel into the past. Certianly, it is "impossible", in that physically, you can't do it, but theoretically, if you could accellerate the past, it will move ahead of the future. Again, that's only if seconds are mobile and travel. It kinda assumes that the moment in which we live is a single moment, that travels with us all along our current existance, rather than infinite moments through which we travel. And THAT would be hard to prove either way.

Your explanation is fine for your explanation. But I'm not talking about adjusting time in that fashion. I'm talking about the entire dimension of time, as far as it stretches.

Il Palazzo Sama · Post by **Il Palazzo Sama** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:52 am

hmmmm.....assumption time.

assumptions made so far.
1. the universe is inifinte.
2. time is tangable and alterable.
3. what blaze is saying hasn't changed since the first post....

blaze, the things you say, are while interesting are full of holes.
if it were possible to accelerate time for the ENTIRE universe, it would take an undeveloped technology and infinite power.

what it sounds ike you are proposing is to EXPAND time so the PAST occupies more "space" effectively moving you into the past. while you would be uneffected by the use of a temporal static feild(uninvented).

But, this requires the entire universe not to colapse un paradoxal effects as your parent never existed....unless you are some how able to puit each member of your entire family int a similar statis feild.... but, now I'm more dealling with how your attempt would fail, rather than how it can't be done.

Real Life Forums

It is impossible to travel into the past...

Who is online