[QUOTE=Rct33;29395430]Not really, realtivity is one of the best theories we currently have to explain the universe. It explains why we have gravitational lensing and why gravity acts instantly.[/QUOTE]
Not relativity, I mean the spacetime continuum and how it is related to gravity.
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ironman17;29395696]What if the nature of time depended on the nature of space? What if in the unstrained areas of the universe, time is more rigid and hard to change, with destiny and fatalism running rife, but in places stretched thin like a mother of 5's area (excuse the vulgar analogy), time can be moulded like soft wet clay, and things can be "rewritten".
And on the subject of history changing, like killing your progenitors, perhaps there could be some sort of "immune system" of time, some force that minimalises the effects of paradoxes and time loops. And if such a thing didn't exist, remember the words of Voltaire, "[I]Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer[/I]" ("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"). Now, replace "God" with a different thing, like a temporal immune system. If there weren't a temporal immune system, it would be necessary to create one, like founding a "Time Agency" to regulate time travel and ensure history turns out right.
And another thing; in the theories of spacetime, space and time are intertwined, right? Well, is there anything to prevent the possibility of variances between space's strength and time's strength? And by that, I suggest the possibility of there being more space than time in some areas, and vice versa.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.mcgrewsecurity.com/img/DudeWhat.jpg[/img]
I see no reason why time should be considered a dimension.
[url]http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dimension[/url]
[quote]
#[B]
# A measure of spatial extent in a particular direction, such as height, width or breadth, or depth.[/B]
# A construct whereby objects or individuals can be distinguished.
# (geometry) Any of the independent coordinates used to specify uniquely the location of a point in a space.
# (linear algebra) The number of elements of any basis of a vector space.
[B]# (physics) One of the physical property regarded as a fundamental measure of a physical quantity, such as mass, length and time.[/B]
The dimensions of velocity are length divided by time.
[/quote]
There are two relevant definitions there - but the second is of course not what we are looking for.
So by definition, time is not a measure of spatial extent.
Time isn't something you can move around in. It goes forward, that's it. If you're "moving back in time", you're just rearranging particles to a position in which they were at a point in the past. Time itself hasn't actually gone back even though it would appear to have done.
Whenever "when" matters, the definitions
[quote](geometry) Any of the independent coordinates used to specify uniquely the location of a point in a space.
(linear algebra) The number of elements of any basis of a vector space.[/quote]
are relevant. A system changes as time changes. You can express the system as a function of time and the function's not a constant (granted, even if it was constant, time would still be a dimension - just a useless one). Even though you can't exactly decide yourself to move from one moment of time to another as you could with some spatial coordinates, the fact remains that the different moments of time exist. Mathematically, that's enough to call it a dimension.
Ancient Greeks failed at physics because they didn't understand to treat time as a dimension. They could've applied all they knew about geometry and mathematics to physics, but it didn't occur to them that time might be treated as a line.
Science, bitches. It works.
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;29397325]There are two relevant definitions there - but the second is of course not what we are looking for.[/QUOTE]
More like the second one isn't what [I]you're[/I] looking for because you disagree with it.
Mathematically, time is a dimension. It's debatable whether it's a dimension in physics, though.
My simple question:
Where are the time travelers?
[QUOTE=Chezhead;29403955]My simple question:
Where are the time travelers?[/QUOTE]
Not just where, but when? Perhaps they're among us, hiding in plain sight, speaking naught and making as few ripples as they can.
[QUOTE=ironman17;29404180]Not just where, but when? Perhaps they're among us, hiding in plain sight, speaking naught and making as few ripples as they can.[/QUOTE]
That's what many people say, but think of the most famous historical event ever. Then, think of the projected lifespan of humanity after we obtain such a devise. Unless it was kept a secret, and the knowledge and mechanics behind this kept secret forever, these event would be flooded with travelers from all walks of time into the infinite future.
Best bet: Tell everyone you know to tell their children to come back to that exact time when or if they create such a machine. Tell these children to do likewise.
There are so many over simplifications, logical fallacies, and misinterpretations of theories in the op that I can't believe this thread has been received so well. Usually facepunch is more skeptical.
I'm traveling through time right now
foulacies did you make that up yourself?
[QUOTE=Checkers;29404582]I'm traveling through time right now
foulacies did you make that up yourself?[/QUOTE]
Everything I know of travels though time. Is there some sort of hypothetical space matter or something that doesn't? I don't know how that would function with our time-traveling bodies.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;29398074]Whenever "when" matters, the definitions
are relevant. A system changes as time changes. You can express the system as a function of time and the function's not a constant (granted, even if it was constant, time would still be a dimension - just a useless one). Even though you can't exactly decide yourself to move from one moment of time to another as you could with some spatial coordinates, the fact remains that the different moments of time exist. Mathematically, that's enough to call it a dimension.
Ancient Greeks failed at physics because they didn't understand to treat time as a dimension. They could've applied all they knew about geometry and mathematics to physics, but it didn't occur to them that time might be treated as a line.[/QUOTE]
Nonononono.
By that same logic, mass is a dimension.
I don't think we're considering mass a dimension here.
I never said time was not a dimension (or if I did, I didn't mean it quite in that way) - I just meant, it can't be considered an addition to the "three" dimensions. It can obviously be considered a dimension like distance can. But not like length, width and depth.
[QUOTE=Dark-Energy;29392942]Well, you could always invent a warp drive[/quote]
no
[quote]because warp drives are scientifically possible[/quote]
no
[quote]we just need enough energy to do it[/quote]
no
[quote]space moves instead of you[/quote]
no
[quote]that time would not dilate[/quote]
no no no no no no no
[quote]So I assume warp drives could not be used for time travel, only for large distance traveling.[/QUOTE]
no
Time travel is actually possible, and has in fact been done many times before, which is why history is so messed up.
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;29394576]Why is time considered a dimension?[/QUOTE]
because it is inextricably linked to space, einstein showed this a hundred years ago
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=mikfoz;29394677]So people can throw mumbo jumbo at you you can't possibly disprove to convince you they're infinitely smarter than you.[/QUOTE]
oh I'm sorry you had such a bad experience with schoolteachers
[QUOTE=Chezhead;29403955]My simple question:
Where are the time travelers?[/QUOTE]
Alternate universes.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;29395153]Isn't this very much debatable?[/QUOTE]
no it's been demonstrated countless times, most famously with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment]atomic clock aeroplane experiment[/url]
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rct33;29395430]why gravity acts instantly.[/QUOTE]
gravity propagates at the speed of light
[QUOTE=flyschy;29405070]Alternate dimensions.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I'm right here. I'm from the year 2012, stuff is really going down I think the world is ending.
[QUOTE=ironman17;29395696]What if the nature of time depended on the nature of space? What if in the unstrained areas of the universe, time is more rigid and hard to change, with destiny and fatalism running rife, but in places stretched thin like a mother of 5's area (excuse the vulgar analogy), time can be moulded like soft wet clay, and things can be "rewritten".
And on the subject of history changing, like killing your progenitors, perhaps there could be some sort of "immune system" of time, some force that minimalises the effects of paradoxes and time loops. And if such a thing didn't exist, remember the words of Voltaire, "[I]Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer[/I]" ("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"). Now, replace "God" with a different thing, like a temporal immune system. If there weren't a temporal immune system, it would be necessary to create one, like founding a "Time Agency" to regulate time travel and ensure history turns out right.[/quote]
as entertaining as doctor who is, it shouldn't be used to derive theories about the universe from
[quote]And another thing; in the theories of spacetime, space and time are intertwined, right? Well, is there anything to prevent the possibility of variances between space's strength and time's strength? And by that, I suggest the possibility of there being more space than time in some areas, and vice versa.[/QUOTE]
what the shit do you even understand what a dimension is
that's like saying "there might be some regions where length is stronger than width and height"
[QUOTE=flyschy;29405070]Alternate universes.[/QUOTE]
I read the book "Timeline", which is an interesting read.
Basically, they use some Quantum "foam" of sorts to move bodies between dimensions by "faxing" them over to alternate universes of different times.
Paradoxes are sorted out by stating that you simply cannot alter the future.
On the travelling faster than light in a wormhole. A worm hole is just a tunnel which has space-time a walls, right? So, wouldn't we just be walking normally through space? Only we would see kinda like a spherical portal which changes his drop-off point depending on the angle at which we see the portal? Kinda like a hole for 2D? And, if it's normal space-time we aren't really going faster than light, we just have run from the same starting point to the same ending point in a shorter amount of time.
And if the walls aren't space-time, then hwo can we know that the principles of relativity apply there. if it's not space-time, what the fuck is it? And how does it interact with space-time? Oooh, two worlds defined by different rules of nature couldn't possibly be together, because the border situation would eb an impossibility.
I have a feeling I'm terribly wrong.
[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;29405548]On the travelling faster than light in a wormhole. A worm hole is just a tunnel which has space-time a walls, right? So, wouldn't we just be walking normally through space? Only we would see kinda like a spherical portal which changes his drop-off point depending on the angle at which we see the portal? Kinda like a hole for 2D? And, if it's normal space-time we aren't really going faster than light, we just have run from the same starting point to the same ending point in a shorter amount of time.
And if the walls aren't space-time, then hwo can we know that the principles of relativity apply there. if it's not space-time, what the fuck is it? And how does it interact with space-time? Oooh, two worlds defined by different rules of nature couldn't possibly be together, because the border situation would eb an impossibility.
I have a feeling I'm terribly wrong.[/QUOTE]
you're thinking of a four-dimensional construct in 2 or 3 dimensional terms, the analogy breaks down when you think too hard.
That's not what gravitational lensing is.
derp
double toast
[QUOTE=Isaiah Mustafa;29405775]Heey did you know that velocity/mass/energy and movement through time are like a scale of sorts?
Let me illustrate
.movement through time...........Velocity...
|--------|--------------------------------------|
The more you have of one, the less of the other
.movement through time...............velocity
|-----------------------------------|-----------|
if you have too much of one, you have negative of the other
movement through time.......velocity
[highlight]--[/highlight]|[highlight]---------[/highlight]|----------------------------------------------|
thus, if you move with a velocity faster than light, you effectively move backward in time[/QUOTE]
I'm trying to comprehend what you're saying, but in order to gain the computational power to do so the messages between the neurons in my brain need to travel faster than light.
Heey did you know that velocity/mass/energy and movement through time are like a scale of sorts?
Let me illustrate
.movement through time...........Velocity...
0.......10............................................100
|--------|--------------------------------------|
in the above diagram, you're not moving very quickly through time because you're moving very quickly in respect to velocity
The more you have of one, the less of the other
.movement through time...............velocity
0........................................90.........100
|-----------------------------------|-----------|
in the above diagram, you're moving very quickly through time since you aren't moving very quickly in respect to velocity
if you have too much of one, you have negative of the other
movement through time.......velocity
..-10........0.......................................................100
[highlight]--[/highlight]|[highlight]---------[/highlight]|----------------------------------------------|
in the above diagram, you're moving backwards through time because your velocity is faster than light, the natural boundary for velocity.
thus, if you move with a velocity faster than light, you effectively move backward in time
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
I coupled my explanation with numbers that don't really mean anything to make it more easily visible what I'm talking about. I guess you could consider the numbers "percentage of speed of light" when talking about velocity.
[QUOTE=Isaiah Mustafa;29405811]I coupled my explanation with [B]numbers that don't really mean anything[/B] to make it [B]more easily visible[/B] what I'm talking about. I guess you could consider the numbers "percentage of speed of light" when talking about velocity.[/QUOTE]
great
what you said still makes zero sense
Time travel was deemed impossible by the Vulcan Science Directorate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
