Time Travel?

Static · #1 (**permalink**) 10-27-2007, 10:41 PM

Do you think it's possible?

I think it is impossible, I just can't think of a way this even seems like it might work. Do you think science just hasn't advanced enough yet?

maggiesxrevenge · 10-27-2007, 10:44 PM

I think it could be possible. I tend to believe in things that haven't/never will happen but I think that our sciences haven't advanced far enough yet. I think that some day we will be able to time travel.

El Pirata · 10-27-2007, 11:15 PM

Ok there are two ways we can approach this, one is less likely then the other. First off let me point out that time travel is possible, but most likely not as described in movies.

You can travel to the future if you got close enough to a black hole to it where time would slow down enough to where you would appear to be frozen, of course that only takes you to the future, and you would have to do it in a way that is not too close to get sucked in.

Another way, which I am still not too familiar way, would be get two black holes entangled in such a fashion to create a worm hole. I am still not too sure about the details, but you could in theory go back in time only to the point where that worm hole was created.

Yet another way would be to jump into another dimension that started a couple years after ours, but would in every sense and fashion be identical to ours, the only difference would be in which both dimensions started, for more details on this read the book Time-Line.

Ol' Patty · 10-27-2007, 11:39 PM

I believe it to be completely impossible. The past is no more a place than the future is. To go "back in time," you would have to arrange every single piece of atomic and sub-atomic matter in the universe to where they were at the desired time. Including the matter making up you and your time machine or whatever.

**SeaStone** · 10-27-2007, 11:45 PM

Oooh, I love time travel!

Okay, let's start it off at this:

The only thing I am sure of is that time does not exist.

Is there any contention to this? Post supporting points.

Static · 10-28-2007, 01:05 AM

I know Einstein's whole theory says a lot about going the speed of light, I think the closer to the speed of light you're going, the slower time is, or it could be faster, I'm not familiar with it exactly, Rist prolly is, I'll look it up and get back...

yossarian · 10-28-2007, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeaStone

Oooh, I love time travel!

Okay, let's start it off at this:

The only thing I am sure of is that time does not exist.

Is there any contention to this? Post supporting points.

Sorry seastone. Time exists cause 4 hours ago i went to the bar, 1.5 hours ago i left the bar and 13 minutes ago i took a 90 second piss, then it took 30 seconds to wash my hands and 30 to walk over to my computer to check BT. and now here i am. though time is measured by what us homosapians call seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades, centuries ect... that's all relative to our existence on earth as it rotates on it's axis and revolves around the sun. shit happens in chronological order whether you like it or not. so time is required for existence. if things didnt happen in chronological order and had no reference point, then everything would be chaotic and i would have left the bar before arriving... which doesnt make sense, cause i had enough time to get some numbers 2nite.... SCORE.

your rebuttal?

**SeaStone** · 10-28-2007, 05:25 PM

Ah, but time is a concept contrived by man! And though "time" moves "forward", is it not a fabric to which can have fold? Or, even then, a sphere? The way you speak, "time" is two dimensional, where ever the thoughts bring it more dimensions than you would grant it.

Forgive me my muddled speech, for I am not at fault. You see, I have been at the task of perusing the ponderous text of Ivanhoe for nigh five hours.

Ol' Patty · 10-28-2007, 08:27 PM

I consider "time," to be nothing more than the inertia, or perpetual motion of the universe. Our concept of time is an attempt at measuring the rate of change in the universe due to this for the benefit of history, science, planning, ect. When you talk about time you get into the realm of perception. Just because we perceive time as linear doesn't mean that it is so, or that it even exists. Time is just another example of our brains trying to make sense of the stimuli that it is receiving. Another example would be how it flips the reflections of light that gives us vision. Otherwise everything we see would be upside down. The same with the scale of color and sound that we are able to perceive. Our concept of time is, at best, a drop in the ocean(understatement) of trying to understand the actual flow of the universe. One of the many reasons why I believe "time travel," to be impossible.

yossarian · 10-28-2007, 10:26 PM

ok, then what best explains the history of the universe? many people buy in to the big bang theory, which is supported by the all the stars shifting in the same direction; meaning our universe is expanding. so, from point A (trillions of years ago, big bang happens) to where we are at today, to the end of human existence, to the end of our universe's existence... This will happen in this order, and will not go backwards. I think you're stuck on the fact that since superman can spin the world backwards, everything will go in reverse. Humans do define time as it is here on earth, but they are still units of measurement as any intelligent life form would require for a functioning system. So if our universe is continuously expanding, time would be required to measure the distance the star traveled from point A to point B. the units of measurement are irrelevant, as long as they are consistent units, hell, u can measure it in light speed or lengths of speedos.