It is impossible to travel into the past...

[Blaze]

1. the universe is inifinte.

That's really not assumption anymore. Almost all calculations show the universe to be either open or flat. (Both of which are infinite). I don't suppose we'll know for SURE for quite some time yet, though.

2. time is tangable and alterable.

Mass and Energy are related. Velocity does alter time. These are the PROVEN facts of Relativity. Atomic clocks on high speed flights have absolutly proven this.

3. what blaze is saying hasn't changed since the first post....

That is correct. It's just a fun silly little theory, with zero practical value, but I really do believe I've got my logic straight.

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.

Correct. I said as much. Impossible, but theoretical.

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).

That's a reasonable way to put it. Think about it like this. At relativistic speeds, time and distance shrink in relation to the traveler. This is time and distance dialation. Proven stuff. So, my idea is that, if TIME and the UNIVERSE move at great speeds, they will expand in relation to the observer. If you do that for the past, present, and future (Since time only travels in one direction, forward, again, proven), the past will have to pass the "present" to fill the space.

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.

Like I said. It is impossible. Thank you for the logical critique!

[Grumlen]

[quote]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). [/quote[/i]

And I've been saying that even in your example, you're STILL getting it WRONG. Even if you managed to completely STOP in time while everything else, including all time frames, moved forward, you would NOT travel into the past. You would just stay at that EXACT moment in time. If time for EVERYTHING else moved twice as fast as your time, it would just take you twice as long to get to a point in time as anyone else. After all, if we are going to consider time itself to be something we can alter the speed of arbitrarily, then it's a PERFECTLY good analogy.

We have a train track that is numbered 0 to 60. My train travels at a speed where it goes 2 numbers while yours goes 1, and we both start at 30. When my train gets to 40, your train is at 35. Thus, you are not travelling backwards. You WILL reach 40 eventually, and unless you throw the train in reverse you're never going back to 30. Time is relative, yes, but thats because we're all moving through it. In fact, time is relative in the same way that movement through ANY other dimension is relative. the only difference is that, out of the 4 dimensions that we can measure, time is the only one that we don't know how to STOP in.

So basically, if you sped up the time of the entire rest of the universe while you remained at a slower speed, you would just see all the clock move really really slow. They wouldn't start turning backwards. Now, if you completely ignore Frame of Reference and look at the time difference on your watch and all the clock in the world, you'd say you traveled into the past. Frame of Reference is the MAJOR flaw in your arguement and logic not matter how you try to look at it.

[Blaze]

We have a train track that is numbered 0 to 60. My train travels at a speed where it goes 2 numbers while yours goes 1, and we both start at 30. When my train gets to 40, your train is at 35. Thus, you are not travelling backwards. You WILL reach 40 eventually, and unless you throw the train in reverse you're never going back to 30. Time is relative, yes, but thats because we're all moving through it. In fact, time is relative in the same way that movement through ANY other dimension is relative. the only difference is that, out of the 4 dimensions that we can measure, time is the only one that we don't know how to STOP in.

If we both start at zero, I will start by seeing the front of your train. If we continue moving, eventually, you will have passed me completely. I will see what was behind your train. Time IS relative. That's what I mean. Yes, I'm still moving forward. But I never said I wasn't. You can move forward to go back. My "time" will be advancing, but it will look to everyone else as if I'm going back in time, and eventually, I will find myself looking at the universe as it was before I began. Thus, I've traveled back in time.

I don't know how much more plainly I can put it.

[Deacon]

teh stupid herts teh brian

[Gowerlypuff]

The universe is not infinite. For one, it's still expanding (as shown with the doppler shifts of galaxies moving away from each other) and two unless you're a creationist, infinite universe = infinite age = it would all be used up by now.

[Blaze]

For one, it's still expanding

Who said something infinite cannot be expanding? It has no edge or center, and yet it's expanding. That violates logic too.

teh stupid herts teh brian

That's twice you've discounted it without ever explaining why you don't think it's feasible. It's YOUR stupid that hurts my brain. What was wrong about what I just said? Explain this to me.

[Il Palazzo Sama]

ok, so what is it expanding into?

nothingness?
empty space?
a divine light barrier?
the inside of a black hole, that we have all been in since the begining of time but don't realive because there are other self contained blackholes within it?
a waist high brick wall with a deck scope for look ing at a paralell universe?(thanks futurama!)


Doppler shift only means movement. The fact that everything is moving means little.

Unless we fly a ship into the hypothetical "brick wall" at the "end of the universe" it is infinite. And NOTHING can prove otherwise. But, if we do, we will be able to measure the universe in all dimensions...and work on drilling through the "wall".

[Blaze]

Exactly. Everything I've learned says that unless it is over the critical mass, meaning it would only seem infinite, as traveling it would bring you back to where you started, then it really IS infinite. The mass and matter of space is still expanding. But the existance of the universe, that is infinite.

I had forgotten the name of the satelite, but it would appear we have the WMAP to thank for the "proof" that the universe is flat and infinite.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2439.html

Edit:

Here, for those of you that don't understand time dialation.



Yes, while it's true I will be moving forward all the time no matter how fast I make time go, I will still enter the past. That is to say, time dialation says time actually changes size, it litterally takes more or less time for a second to happen, based on speed. So, Present time will pass me, just as if I accellerate, I pass present time, and the past will fill MY present. It might, however, be more accurate to say I'm "experiencing" the past than traveling into it, since an overlay of the two graphs shows I've still moved "forward", it's simply that time too has moved "forward", faster. But I would be occupying seconds through which I had already traveled.

[Gowerlypuff]

[quote="Blaze";p="440266"]

For one, it's still expanding

Who said something infinite cannot be expanding? It has no edge or center, and yet it's expanding. That violates logic too.
[/quote]


It does have edges and a centre, it's just we can't reach the edges because they're moving too fast and we don't know where the centre is (but we can safely assume it's the point all the galaxies are moving away from, if we could work that out.

Edit: That 'proof' does just say "we don't know for certain". How, exactly would you observe that the universe is flat and infinite?

To me, that looks like a different definition of "universe" to the one people have been using in the past.

[Spongiform]

How about the universe is infinite, and it's just the STUFF in it that's expanding to fill up more of the space?

Voila, an infinite expanding universe.

[Blaze]

As I said, Puff. Look up stuff on the WMAP satellite. It proves that the universe is right AT Critical density, meaning it is flat, and will expand forever. A universe that expands forever cannot possibly be finite.

And the thing you're talking about with the edges and center, Puff? That's the observable universe. As we can see it from earth. Rest assured, it's much, much larger.

[Deacon]

[quote="Blaze";p="440334"]A universe that expands forever cannot possibly be finite.[/quote]
Actually, Spongey's explanation is the best. But if a universe expands forever, isn't the ONLY possibility that it's finite? If something is infinite, it can't expand anymore, can it? The concept of infinity growing larger seems...wrong.

[Gowerlypuff]

Okay, well when I look up stuff on the WMAP it says that the universe is flat. This, I agree with as I thought the idea of coming back onto yourself was a bit goofy. Nowhere, however, does it say it's infinite. It does say that the universe will continue expanding to infinity and that's fine. However, flat does not imply infinite. You can take an infinite sheet of paper and roll it up into a cylinder and then roll it again into a taurus. Flat, but finite.

[CyberEd]

Gowerlypuff, hmmm....
ok, so the world is flat.... and.... is resting on the back of a really large turtle ?

the theory I know claims there is no such thing as a stright line, everything is curved, and so, no matter how far you'll go, you'll always end up in square one...

The concept of infinity growing larger seems...wrong.

according to the set theory, a specific infinity CAN be bigger than another infinity. thus an infinity CAN grow larger.



Edit: I've seen the site Gowerlypuff has posted, and I fail to understand how the world is flat(like a sheet of paper) I can see (with my own eyes) a third dimention...

[Deacon]

See? When mathematicians lose touch with reality, they start pulling some wack shit out of their pale and pockmarked asses to plug in the holes, unwilling to accept that they simply don't know yet and haven't been able to figure it out for real.

And no, the universe is not flat. That makes no sense whatsoever, even if you loosen up the definition of flat to just say that it all rests on a single plane, which is just patently and painfully, obviously false.