#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# A big fat HA! to you!

This topic is 5791 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

Time Traveling to the past is immpossible in my theory and I''ll show you why! All atoms shake around. This is movement. Movement is to start from one point and go to another. This involves distances. So, because all distances are either 0 or positive, you can''t go -7 feet. And therefore, because going forward in time involves movement, any movement will force time forward. So, the only way to go backwards in time is to go a negative distance which is immpossible. Now for all those people who think that backwards time travel is possible to start flaming me.

##### Share on other sites
I don''t think time travel is possible either way, but that has got to be the logic of a 5 year old who has only the vaguest concepts of physics.

"And therefore, because going forward in time involves movement, any movement will force time forward."

Who says movement causes any time shift? If I were to stand completely still, time would stop for me?

Use the WriteCoolGame() function
Works every time

##### Share on other sites
niz

?tuoba gniklat uoy era lleh eht tahW

.

zintel.com - 3d graphics & more or less

##### Share on other sites
By standing still you mean no atomic movement right? Well, that constitutes that time stops for you (ie, no aging, no brain functions) but time will go on for everyone around you. And remember, some things just sound really bad anbd stupid, but are profound.

##### Share on other sites
Actually, according to quantum mechanics, particles travel back in time all the time. Check out Schrodinger''s Kittens and the Search for Reality for more information.

##### Share on other sites
Well, according to basic Physics, movement is classified as displacement, which is a vector quantity, meaning it has a magnitude and direction. So it is possible to move -7 feet.

##### Share on other sites
Or some people try and sound really profound, and end up sounding really bad and stupid. Are you some sort of sadist? from what I''ve read of your posts, you seem to invite flaming.

Use the WriteCoolGame() function
Works every time

##### Share on other sites
quote:

Time Traveling to the past is immpossible in my theory and I''ll show you why!

All atoms shake around. This is movement. Movement is to start from one point and go to another. This involves distances. So, because all distances are either 0 or positive, you can''t go -7 feet. And therefore, because going forward in time involves movement, any movement will force time forward. So, the only way to go backwards in time is to go a negative distance which is immpossible. Now for all those people who think that backwards time travel is possible to start flaming me.

Well, I''m unsure on whether time is a arrow or not, but here is how I would counter your argument:

Let''s say the current belief is true: that the universe is expanding (from the big bang). Therefore, it is safe to say the we are predominantly moving in one direction (the rotation of the planets, galaxy, and movement of atoms is insignificant). Threfore, distance, for us, is going in one direction. Let''s call it positive. If we could go faster than this speed of expansion in the direction opposite of expansion, we could then achieve our negative direction, threby making us go back in time.

I don''t know how much I''m stretching with this argument, but I think it''s pretty logically sound (coming off the top of my head). If you''ve ever read Stepehn Hawkings, "A Brief History Of Time", it says somewhere in there that when/if the universe were to stop expanding and start contracting, time would begin to go backwards. So, let''s see what you guys can say about that.

quote:

I don''t think time travel is possible either way, but that has got to be the logic of a 5 year old who has only the vaguest concepts of physics.

"And therefore, because going forward in time involves movement, any movement will force time forward."

Who says movement causes any time shift? If I were to stand completely still, time would stop for me?

Problem with this, is that you can never truly stand still. You will always be slightly moving (heart beating, cells replicating, atoms vibrating). I know scientists have tried to stop an atom from moving by freezing one at absolute zero, but no success has been made. They can get close to abs zero, but no cigar. They are unsure on what will happen once it does moving, but one theory is that gravity will cause the electron to collide onto the nucleus creating an explosion. Or, it just might stop, frozen in time. Who knows?

##### Share on other sites
Sorry maybe I sounded to literal, that was sarcasm. I know it''s impossible to stand completely still. It''d be kinda boring. lol

Use the WriteCoolGame() function
Works every time

##### Share on other sites
OK, one more refutation here. If I -could- stop every atom in my body. That still would not stop time, even for me. Say I did this for ten years. Would I wake up and be still in 2002? no I'd be in 2012.I would not have aged in appearance, but I did not stop time. I would still have existed those 10 years, I'd be numerically 10 years older. All I did would stop the aging process (and accomplished an incredible scientific achievement). Oh, and I'd be dead as I stayed still and the earth spiraled away from me.

Use the WriteCoolGame() function
Works every time

Edited by - Agincourt on February 25, 2002 12:41:13 AM

##### Share on other sites
What if it were to be that time is abstract and nonexistant? Well, if we were able to get back a molecular form to the exact state it was before, than you can say it ''traveled back'' in time by itself..., but not reletive to others but only for itself.

##### Share on other sites
>OK, one more refutation here. If I -could- stop every atom in my body. That still would not stop time, even for me. Say I did this for ten years. Would I wake up and be still in 2002? no I''d be in 2012.I would not have aged in appearance, but I did not stop time. I would still have existed those 10 years, I''d be numerically 10 years older. All I did would stop the aging process (and accomplished an incredible scientific achievement). Oh, and I''d be dead as I stayed still and the earth spiraled away from me.

Yes, numerically, you aged. But why didn''t your body age naturally? Because it COULDN''T since it couldn''t move and it couldn''t walk around and such. According to Einsteins special theory of relitivity, (Im paraphrasing) if you dont move time doesn''t move for you! Relitive to others, sure they move in time, but you? Nope.

##### Share on other sites
Weren''t you just arguing against time travel? Now for it? am I confused, or are you?

Use the WriteCoolGame() function
Works every time

##### Share on other sites
I was arguing against BACKWARDS time travel. You do forward time travel more times than you think.

##### Share on other sites
"What if it were to be that time is abstract and nonexistant? Well, if we were able to get back a molecular form to the exact state it was before, than you can say it ''traveled back'' in time by itself..., but not reletive to others but only for itself. "

That sounds like an argument for backwards time travel. And future "time travel" is possible, but not by standing completely still. Scientists have (don''t remember who, or where, maybe I''ll look it up) shot a photon through specially treated cesium(not sure why cesium) but it exceeded the speed of light and traveled foward in time and existed two places at once. And I refuse to go further in this pissing match. We both could cite (or make up) sources supporting both are points. I''ll believe it when I see it(or do it)

Use the WriteCoolGame() function
Works every time

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Andrew Nguyen
According to Einsteins special theory of relitivity, (Im paraphrasing) if you dont move time doesn''t move for you! Relitive to others, sure they move in time, but you? Nope.

You have this completely backwards. Einstein theorized (and experiments have shown this to be true) that the more you move through space, the less you move through time. This is the basis of the so-called "Twins Paradox." This is where one identical twin could stay on the Earth while the other travels in a spaceship at speeds near the speed of light. When the twin in the ship returns to Earth, the relatively stationary twin will have aged more than the fast moving twin in the spaceship.

If you are interested in time travel, there is a couple of articles in the most recent "Popular Science" magazine regarding theoretical ways to travel back in time. Unfortunately, most of these require virtually impossible feats like flying through black holes or moving around parallel cosmic strings.

##### Share on other sites
Time does not stand still for me if I do not move. I think you''ve confused Einstein''s theory a bit. In fact in my own frame of reference, I never move and everything in the universe moves relative to me, so obviously time does not stand still. What you were thinking of was time dilation that says that if something is moving relative to my frame of reference, then I perceive that their time intervals are slowed down. What happens at the limit (the speed of light, c) is that we as outside observers perceive time for the thing moving at c to not be going forward at all. Mainly, special relativity establishes that time is not absolute and is measured differently from different frames of reference.

As for the arrow of time, Stephen Hawking suggests that time as we perceive it probably must flow in the direction that entropy increases. Why? Our memories expend energy to store information, resulting in an increase in entropy. We all know that we do not see shattered wine glasses reconstruct themselves randomly.

##### Share on other sites
Why is this in the writing section?

Get outta here you goddamn science freak wackos!

##### Share on other sites
Through the use of atomic clocks and faster than sound airplanes, we have proven that time is infact relative. And actually moves slower the faster something moves.. and as the theory goes, at the speed of light time stops moving.. thus the way to travel into the future is to travel the speed of light.. where everything around you ages and you stay at the same age. There is no actually way to go back in time.. but if everything were to travel faster than you then you would age and everything else wouldn''t.. whereas everything would travel into your future.

##### Share on other sites
Also.. if you combined a mouse and a trackball.. can you control time?

##### Share on other sites
I can travel through time by changing the hands of my clock =)

Is time travel possible!!!??? Let''s slow time down first before going backwards huh? =P

If''s it is thinkable.. then it is possible.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Andrew Nguyen
>OK, one more refutation here. If I -could- stop every atom in my body. That still would not stop time, even for me. Say I did this for ten years. Would I wake up and be still in 2002? no I''d be in 2012.I would not have aged in appearance, but I did not stop time. I would still have existed those 10 years, I''d be numerically 10 years older. All I did would stop the aging process (and accomplished an incredible scientific achievement). Oh, and I''d be dead as I stayed still and the earth spiraled away from me.

Yes, numerically, you aged. But why didn''t your body age naturally? Because it COULDN''T since it couldn''t move and it couldn''t walk around and such. According to Einsteins special theory of relitivity, (Im paraphrasing) if you dont move time doesn''t move for you! Relitive to others, sure they move in time, but you? Nope.

Einstein''s relativity is about time dilation, not time _travel_. Time speeding up or slowing down in a frame of reference is dilation. Einstein did not accept or believe in discontinuities in time, even though they are now an accepted part of physics.

##### Share on other sites
Einsteins special theory, not general.

##### Share on other sites
Well, general relativity doesn''t talk about time travel either. It is still the same time dilation/length contraction but with acceleration taken into account and curvature of space-time. The only convincing thing I''ve seen pertinent to time travel lies in the realm of quantum mechanics, where wormholes can appear and lead to possibly other times. But most of the work is still theory. A good book to read about this is Kip Thorne''s Black Holes and Time Warps. I highly recommend it.

##### Share on other sites
I find it impossible. If I place a cup down at 1300h, and move it one foot left at 1305h, where would the possibility of going back to 1303h exist?

Right now, as I am typing, I am moving. I am generating motion. I am taking time to type. Each one of these sentences takes me time to write, just as they take you time to read.

The only way that I can see it possible (backwards time travel), would be to have all of our movements tracked somehow. In order to travel back in time, you would have to recover the position and thought and exact status of every single atom in the universe(or just world?) of the time you are going back to.

I am not educated enough to argue along this topic. rather, I would like to encourage smarter people such as the previous posters to keep posting and enlightening my knowledge. =)

~Dwarf