You could consider them percentages of how fast you are moving relative to the natural boundary for velocity, i.e. the speed of light. So percentage of the speed of light. It helps you understand it better because it is like a number line.
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29405854]great
what you said still makes zero sense[/QUOTE]
Ordinarily since you are so daft as to completely miss what I am trying to point out, I would suggest that you rate yourself dumb rather than myself, however, one cannot self-rate.
[QUOTE=Chezhead;29403955]My simple question:
Where are the time travelers?[/QUOTE]
I always thought that there are no time travelers now because this is the "first" timeline. So then if we discover time travel, we'd be the first travelers, and then the act of going back in time would create a "second" timeline. And we'd be the time travelers everyone asks about but in another dimension.
Or maybe since there are infinite timelines, the chance of time travelers visiting OUR timeline is infinitely low
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
Since there are also obviously lots of timelines in which intelligent organisms don't even exist, that further lowers the chance that an organism from an intelligent being from a timeline in which time travel has been discovered travels to our timeline, one in an infinity of timelines.
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
Who said that timelines can only be the result of one splitting off from another? Even then, there would be a damn lot of timelines
[QUOTE=Rct33;29395430]It explains why we have gravitational lensing and [b]why gravity acts instantly.[/b][/QUOTE]
Relativity explains precisely the opposite.
But then I don't understand how there are already infinite timelines, unless you mean dimensions. And even then how are there infinitely many?
[QUOTE=Isaiah Mustafa;29405918]Ordinarily since you are so daft as to completely miss what I am trying to point out, I would suggest that you rate yourself dumb rather than myself, however, one cannot self-rate.[/QUOTE]
or how about you explain it better than an arbitrary jumble of ASCII
I can't make head nor tail of your [b][highlight]"[/highlight][/b]diagram[b][highlight]"[/highlight][/b]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29406260]or how about you explain it better than an arbitrary jumble of ASCII
I can't make head nor tail of your [b][highlight]"[/highlight][/b]diagram[b][highlight]"[/highlight][/b][/QUOTE]
The faster you move relative to something else, the slower your time goes relative to that something else. GPS-satellites that are speeding in the orbit have to calculate this time "error" and compensate for it.
[QUOTE=ElGrego;29392834]Me and my uncle Rico bought a sweet time machine off the interweb.
[img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Napoleon-Dynamite-e1278552030884.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
That's not a time machine. This is:
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z2d4IxltHJI/TLs1ffl6R8I/AAAAAAAAECE/McgjRUL2jF4/s1600/SexyChik_smokingBong.jpg[/img]
If I could do one thing through time travel it would be replacing Joseph Stalin's soap with cheese.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29406196]Relativity explains precisely the opposite.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea why I said that. I should really read what I write.
[QUOTE=Block;29406518]The faster you move relative to something else, the slower your time goes relative to that something else. GPS-satellites that are speeding in the orbit have to calculate this time "error" and compensate for it.[/QUOTE]
okay, but we've known about this for decades
I don't see how you could travel backwards with this
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dempsey;29406222]And even then how are there infinitely many?[/QUOTE]
read up on the anthropic principles
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SNNS-SEAN;29406677]If I could do one thing through time travel it would be replacing Joseph Stalin's soap with cheese.[/QUOTE]
other way around
[QUOTE=JgcxCub;29404916]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]
I don't see why mass couldn't be a dimension. It'd probably refer to the mass of the entire system or something, as assigning mass to a point creates a singularity. But I can see how you could end up with mass, or at least density, as a dimension. It's definitely not as useful as having time as a dimension, because as I mentioned earlier, time is required for events and those we deal with constantly. Density or mass as a dimension could probably be used to analyze some structure's stability depending on its material.
I hate science threads.
It's full of people who have no idea what they are talking about and are trying to act smart.
so what am saying cause star trek does it doesn't mean it's real.
[QUOTE=Xolo;29392881]Traveling backwards in time isn't possible because of radiation feedback[/QUOTE]
This is one hypothesis for the timelike eventhorizon of e.g. a wormhole. Still this mustn't mean it is completely impossible or must be true.
[editline]24th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;29392893]Only one problem with this.
Traveling faster than the speed of light is scientifically impossible.
according to Einstein, anyway.[/QUOTE]
Nobody wrote "faster than the speed of light". Anyway, this is only valid for particles with a real mass. Infact, everything with a real mass must be slower than the speed of light, everything with no mass must travel at the speed of light and everything with an imaginary mass must travel faster than the speed of light.
Time travel is easy as fuck you guys are just dumb.
Everytime I even start thinking about time my mind gets all clusterfucked.
I am now wondering why I attempted to explain this to the lot of daft 10 year olds who click this thread because of herp derp time travel. I'm not even being egocentric thinking 'oh I'm smarter than you all,' either, you're just a bunch of retards.
So let me see if I get this...
on the scale of intelligence you're about a
l-------------------l----l
And we're a
l---l--------------------l
[QUOTE=aVoN;29407121]everything with an imaginary mass must travel faster than the speed of light.[/QUOTE]
Can you explain this.
[QUOTE=Rct33;29407551]Can you explain this.[/QUOTE]
Imaginary mass goes in, faster than light speed goes out
You can't explain that
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29405621]you're thinking of a four-dimensional construct in 2 or 3 dimensional terms, the analogy breaks down when you think too hard.[/QUOTE]
Well yes, but whatever happens in the space-time fabric influences our spacial dimensions.
The 2D dude goes into the hole and all he knows is that the scenery changed, he can't detect that his 2D plane was bent into a 3D plane.
I think the same would happen with the spherical portal I mentioned.
Then again, he would only be able to see a change in scenery when actually going into the hole, and if we consider the hole curve in all spots, he will never see anything while in the hole, since there is a different 2D plane for each point in the curve.
So I guess our portal would be completely black, and we only see after we came out of it.
According to what I said, if we locked backwards, we would be able to see our body appear from that blackness.
Cool.
And what about the other things I said? About the wormhole, being just an extension of space-time, not interfering with time?
-snip-
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;29408760]Just because you're within a wormhole doesn't mean you're travelling faster than light.
Someone needs to read up on some wormhole theories...[/QUOTE]
Yeah he interpreted that wrong. You don't go back in time because you're getting somewhere really fast, the wormhole actually connects to a point in the past in spacetime.
this thread fucks my mind. time travel kind of scares me, thinking of the repercussions of a simple action done when visiting the past, or what you would find the future actually is. It'd be cool, but knowing the future is something that leaves a heavy burden on my mind, if i knew the future that is.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29408974]Yeah he interpreted that wrong. You don't go back in time because you're getting somewhere really fast, the wormhole actually connects to a point in the past in spacetime.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. But wait, if we're on a determined point in space-time, and the tunnel connects to some other point in the spheric surface, then are there space-time layers? Or pools of space-time that are left in the past?
:psyduck:
I'm gonna go ahead and say time travel isn't possible because I'm a square.
[QUOTE=Dempsey;29407512]So let me see if I get this...
on the scale of intelligence you're about a
l-------------------l----l
And we're a
l---l--------------------l[/QUOTE]
there you go proving my point for me, I needn't even post at all
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYKfZzk4MOQ[/media]
this video clears up all questiosn you should have about time thank you!
If you went back in time to do something, then by the time you get ready to go back in time to do that thing, wouldn't it have been done already? But then, if you don't go back in time to do it, then you wouldn't have done it, and you'd need to do it.
???
I was going to post that.
If you fix whatever it is you go back to the past for, you have no reason t ogo back to the past anymore, which means that it isn't fixed, which emans that you go back, etc. etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
