Catman25 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you travel fast enough you will travel through time. But people can't reach such high speeds and therefore can't time travel. I think .. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Time-travel to the future is certainly possible due to special relativity. Time-travel to the past is possible for one simple reason: People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you travel fast enough you will travel through time. But people can't reach such high speeds and therefore can't time travel. I think .. ;DNo. A russian astronaut that lived on a space base for 2 years in 1980 is believed to have actually aged 1 minute less there. But spending 2 years of your life in space just to live 1 minute more does not sound very...appealing... Time-travel to the past is possible for one simple reason: People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect' date=' but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.[/quote'] Say what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Time-travel to the past is possible for one simple reason: People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect' date=' but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.[/quote'] Say what? Doctor Who Quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niño Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I'm from the Victorian future' date=' so... Yes.[/quote']Notice, Victorian, named after Queen Victoria in the past also notice you stated future, when Victorian times were in the past, have we named another era after our to be Queen whos name is "Victoria"correct me if I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman25 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you travel fast enough you will travel through time. But people can't reach such high speeds and therefore can't time travel. I think .. ;DNo. A russian astronaut that lived on a space base for 2 years in 1980 is believed to have actually aged 1 minute less there. But spending 2 years of your life in space just to live 1 minute more does not sound very...appealing...Wait, how does that disprove my claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you travel fast enough you will travel through time. But people can't reach such high speeds and therefore can't time travel. I think .. ;DNo. A russian astronaut that lived on a space base for 2 years in 1980 is believed to have actually aged 1 minute less there. But spending 2 years of your life in space just to live 1 minute more does not sound very...appealing...Wait' date=' how does that disprove my claim?[/quote'] It disproves your claim because it shows that someone has already time-traveled a measurable amount of time into the future. Of course, your claim was nonsense from the start because it was based purely on what current technology permits and not on what is physically possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Riku~ Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I'm from the Victorian future' date=' so... Yes.[/quote']Notice, Victorian, named after Queen Victoria in the past also notice you stated future, when Victorian times were in the past, have we named another era after our to be Queen whos name is "Victoria"correct me if I'm wrong. Yes! In the future, it is the reign of Queen Victoria the IXth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrekstasy Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Mhm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Riku~ Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman25 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you travel fast enough you will travel through time. But people can't reach such high speeds and therefore can't time travel. I think .. ;DNo. A russian astronaut that lived on a space base for 2 years in 1980 is believed to have actually aged 1 minute less there. But spending 2 years of your life in space just to live 1 minute more does not sound very...appealing...Wait' date=' how does that disprove my claim?[/quote'] It disproves your claim because it shows that someone has already time-traveled a measurable amount of time into the future. Of course, your claim was nonsense from the start because it was based purely on what current technology permits and not on what is physically possible.What is physically possible at the moment is only what the current technology permits. Unless we're talking about time traveling in the future, when we have better technology. Still we probably won't even get that advanced before the sun eats us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 ITT: Catman thinks that 65billion years is a short time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Riku~ Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 ITT: Catman thinks that 65billion years is a short time. Apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman25 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 ITT: Catman thinks that 65billion years is a short time. We'll probably get hit by a meteor years before that. But in all reality that is a pretty short time. ;/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 ITT: Catman thinks that 65billion years is a short time. We'll probably get hit by a meteor years before that. What a useless defense. We'll probably be hit by meteors every god damn second we live. For all you know we could get unlucky and one slingshots around Jupiter straight at us. But the chance of that? Not enough to defend yourself in an argument with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niño Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you travel fast enough you will travel through time. But people can't reach such high speeds and therefore can't time travel. I think .. ;DNo. A russian astronaut that lived on a space base for 2 years in 1980 is believed to have actually aged 1 minute less there. But spending 2 years of your life in space just to live 1 minute more does not sound very...appealing...Wait' date=' how does that disprove my claim?[/quote'] It disproves your claim because it shows that someone has already time-traveled a measurable amount of time into the future. Of course, your claim was nonsense from the start because it was based purely on what current technology permits and not on what is physically possible.Ehh, awnser me something then C.H <33If we went far enough into space, stayed there for a fairly long period of time, and then returned to Earth, would our age have decreased, or no?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Riku~ Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 ITT: Catman thinks that 65billion years is a short time. We'll probably get hit by a meteor years before that. But in all reality that is a pretty short time. ;/ Not when the average human lifespan is less than 100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman25 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 What a useless defense. We'll probably be hit by meteors every god damn second we live. For all you know we could get unlucky and one slingshots around Jupiter straight at us. But the chance of that? Not enough to defend yourself in an argument with.2012 Fine, but why would the gov spend so much money to develop something that is only theoretical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Because it is not. Time travel via gravity loss+speed is very harmful for precision machines. For example, GPS satellites are specially tuned to treat 200 seconds as 201 seconds, so that their flashforward (lol) does not harm the GPS readings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 What a useless defense. We'll probably be hit by meteors every god damn second we live. For all you know we could get unlucky and one slingshots around Jupiter straight at us. But the chance of that? Not enough to defend yourself in an argument with.2012 Fine' date=' but why would the gov spend so much money to develop something that is only theoretical?[/quote'] *looks at NASA, nuclear bombs and everything else*I don't know you tell me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catman25 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Something that we haven't proved to be factual would possibly be a waste of time and money, which in the future we might actually need. This reduces the chance of it being further studied and developed, rendering it impossible in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindscatter Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Read my above post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 You don't understand Catman. Everything is theory. Science is theory. It's merely fact because normally 99.99~% it's correct. So what if what they did failed miserably? No nuclear power. No combustion engines. Why? Because it wouldn't be deemed possible. That's why the government would take the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabHelmet Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 If you travel fast enough you will travel through time. But people can't reach such high speeds and therefore can't time travel. I think .. ;DNo. A russian astronaut that lived on a space base for 2 years in 1980 is believed to have actually aged 1 minute less there. But spending 2 years of your life in space just to live 1 minute more does not sound very...appealing...Wait' date=' how does that disprove my claim?[/quote'] It disproves your claim because it shows that someone has already time-traveled a measurable amount of time into the future. Of course, your claim was nonsense from the start because it was based purely on what current technology permits and not on what is physically possible.What is physically possible at the moment is only what the current technology permits. Unless we're talking about time traveling in the future, when we have better technology. Still we probably won't even get that advanced before the sun eats us. There is a fundamental difference between the statement "We cannot move at half the speed of light" and the statement "We cannot move at twice the speed of light". The former simply describes how far our current technology has and has not advanced. The latter refers to a fundamental law of the universe that is independent of how far our technology has developed. Similarly, you could compare, say, landing manned vehicles on Mars and simultaneously determining a particle's position and velocity to perfect precision. The former is only impossible in the sense that we do not quite have the technology to accomplish it at the present time. The latter is fundamentally impossible in the sense that nobody anywhere with any amount of technology can ever do it - see the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This topic discusses time travel not in the sense of "Do we have the technology to do it now?" but rather in the sense of "Is it physically possible to accomplish?", yet you have chosen to interpret the question it what is evidently the wrong way. Gee, thanks for informing us that we don't happen to have invented a TARDIS yet, genius. We totally couldn't have figured that out on our own. The question quite clearly concerns whether it is theoretically possible, not whether we can do it now. Why didn't you figure this out? Answer: You're an idiot. ITT: Catman thinks that 65billion years is a short time. We'll probably get hit by a meteor years before that. But in all reality that is a pretty short time. ;/ The universe is currently believed to be no more than 14 billion years old. 65 billion years is thus almost five times the age of the universe. If you consider that to be a "short time"' date=' then you have robbed the word "short" of all meaning. Why would you call that "short"? Answer: You're an idiot. If you travel fast enough you will travel through time. But people can't reach such high speeds and therefore can't time travel. I think .. ;DNo. A russian astronaut that lived on a space base for 2 years in 1980 is believed to have actually aged 1 minute less there. But spending 2 years of your life in space just to live 1 minute more does not sound very...appealing...Wait' date=' how does that disprove my claim?[/quote'] It disproves your claim because it shows that someone has already time-traveled a measurable amount of time into the future. Of course, your claim was nonsense from the start because it was based purely on what current technology permits and not on what is physically possible.Ehh, awnser me something then C.H <33If we went far enough into space, stayed there for a fairly long period of time, and then returned to Earth, would our age have decreased, or no?. It's not a matter of going into space and then staying there. You need to be moving at relativistic speeds, id est significantly large fractions of the speed of light. If you do this and then return to Earth, you will have aged less than the people on Earth did in your absence. Incidentally, the band Queen has a good song based on this concept, called . Something that we haven't proved to be factual would possibly be a waste of time and money' date=' which in the future we might actually need. This reduces the chance of it being further studied and developed, rendering it impossible in the future.[/quote'] Oh, wonderful. You've degenerated into claiming that Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was wrong, while continuing to attack the wrong question as described above (which is an informal logical fallacy known as Straw Man). Why? Answer: You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Altair Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Salty, why even bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.