Time Travel

Christhedude

Christhedude

2,344
United Kingdom
Bristol UK
GTP_Chris
Evening people,

just out of curiosity i started to read up some articels and facts about time travelling.
I searched with wikipedia and there are some pretty interesting facts in it.
There have even been a few experiments making time travel possible.
Like that japanese guy, who was able to send a package of electro magnetic waves back into the past for 65 nano seconds!

What i just dont understand is, how the time travel should be possible. Because in my opinion, you cant travel BACK into time, since everything happened already.I mean, its not like that you can go back into the year...lets say 1988 and watch your own birth! I just dont get it, how this should be possible to act in the past again?! -Somebody can explain that to me?

About traveling into the future, i believe that there is a better chance then travelling back in time.
But here again my question! I can't imagine travelling forward in time and see people living in year...2020.
In time travelling i understand that like you take an aerocraft which flies faster then the speed of light and when you come back to earth, time passed by like 10 years, but for you in the spacecraft only 1 year. thats how you "safe" 9 years of your life and so you can live 9 years longer then if you wouldnt have done that trip.
To see people living in 2020 there has to be another world for that. Since there is only 1 world, how would you be able to live in 2020...Thats just what i dont understand :s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

Chris
 
I'll have you know if you travel back in time you must bring your own weapons, You do not get paid until you get back, and your safety... is not guaranteed. It's not a joke.

I should know, I've done it once before...
 
I pushed it to the limit.

Walked along the razors edge.

I didn't look down, I kept my head.

I wasn't finished.
 
The problem with backwards time travel is that you can't prove it. If I tried to prove I was traveling back in time, my proof would exist before I tried to prove it. Therefore, nobody, including yourself, would be able to recognize, much less comprehend, when, how, or what your proof is.

You can trust me on this one. I'm from the internets.
 
If you understand how the universe works, it's probable that you just don't know enough about it.

Same works with time travel.

Let's look at it this way - time is just another dimension. If you can travel in length, width and height, why not time? In fact, you're doing it right now - travelling forwards in time...
 
Omnis
The problem with backwards time travel is that you can't prove it. If I tried to prove I was traveling back in time, my proof would exist before I tried to prove it. Therefore, nobody, including yourself, would be able to recognize, much less comprehend, when, how, or what your proof is.

You can trust me on this one. I'm from the internets.
Click to expand...


i understand that, but there this guy...whats his name....ronald martell or so, hes building the first time machine ever, and he said, that as soon as he would "turn on" his machine, it would be possible to travell back and forth in time ONLY from the moment on the machine was "turned on".
 
Christhedude
i understand that, but there this guy...whats his name....ronald martell or so, hes building the first time machine ever, and he said, that as soon as he would "turn on" his machine, it would be possible to travell back and forth in time ONLY from the moment on the machine was "turned on".
Click to expand...

Therefore, any proof for the outside world would already be in the past.

 
Christhedude
i understand that, but there this guy...whats his name....ronald martell or so, hes building the first time machine ever, and he said, that as soon as he would "turn on" his machine, it would be possible to travell back and forth in time ONLY from the moment on the machine was "turned on".
Click to expand...

What makes this guy's notions believable?
 
I don't believe in time traveling, especially back in the past.
The only thing i believe is maybe possible is LOOKING back in time, like you do when you're looking at stars, but then more precise.
 
dustdriver
I don't believe in time traveling, especially back in the past.
The only thing i believe is maybe possible is LOOKING back in time, like you do when you're looking at stars, but then more precise.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The further you look, the further back in time you see. If you can then set off towards the objects at speeds in excess of the speed of light (not impossible) you can travel back in time - you're overtaking the light - and the object would appear to move backwards.

If you were to look backwards on the path you've taken, your origin (one would assume to be the Earth) would also appear to move backwards.
 
skip0110
If you could move your time backwards in relation to someone else's, then how would we define "now"?
Click to expand...

Now is now.

This is where relativity comes in. Relative to me, your now hasn't happened yet. Relative to you, my now has gone. But both nows are still now, even if they've already happened or haven't happened yet.
 
Famine
What makes this guy's notions believable?
Click to expand...

well, i'm going to look for the link. its was on bbc. He even thinks, that as soon as he turns on his time machine, it might be possible that suddenly small objects/photons/protons appear in the machine, which he sent from the future back to the present he lives in.

It quit fascinating how this will work out, and it actually makes sense!

:// found the link! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5896048467372201322&q=time+travel

and here's another link to an eledged time traveller from the year 2036. http://www.johntitor.com/

its pretty funny to read because you can see, that in my opinion , this is a hoax. what do you people think?
 
well, if you can travel faster than light, then everything would be dark, thats my opinion.
because if your moving faster than it can hit you, then it wont hit you, and the closer you get to being faster than light, the darker it will get.
 
Tulok
well, if you can travel faster than light, then everything would be dark, thats my opinion.
because if your moving faster than it can hit you, then it wont hit you, and the closer you get to being faster than light, the darker it will get.
Click to expand...

I can travel faster than the speed of rain, but my car still gets wet.
 
Famine
I can travel faster than the speed of rain, but my car still gets wet.
Click to expand...

Well in theory if you traveled faster than the speed of rain the air buffer that would be created over your car would mean that any raindrops would just slipstream over the cars profile and never touch the surface, but you would probably need to be going like 200MPH!

I first noticed this with snow, if you drove fast enough as snow was falling it would get caught in the airflow over the car and I would see flakes come within centimeters of the glass then change course and go over the car without ever touching.....
 
Rain doesn't fall at 200mph, I think the terminal velocity of rain is under 50mph. Your car still gets soaked driving in the rain at 80mph.
 
live4speed
Rain doesn't fall at 200mph, I think the terminal velocity of rain is under 50mph. Your car still gets soaked driving in the rain at 80mph.
Click to expand...

No I meant driving fast enough to create an air shockwave across the cars profile particularly the windscreen... to the point where the pocket of air will create a shield stopping the water hitting the windscreen..... but you would have to drive very fast.
 
Get to the right speed and yes, thats probably true. But the right speed is much faster than the speed of the rain. 200mph proably still wouldn't do it but I'm just guessing there.
 
If the rain was behind you it would work...

But light... light is everywhere (almost). I dont think it would be dark...
 
No it wouldn't be dark, you'd just be hitting things before you saw them.

Say your flying to x, behind x is y, your travelling faster than the speed of light so you only see y but you haven't got to x yet. As you get to x you can no longer see y even though it's further away but now yo can see z which is behing y. I think that's it anyway.
 
lol we got from time travel into speed of rain/ snow, that pretty funny to watch :)

but anyways, i'm not one of these time travel freaks, but physics were always one of my interests so thats why.

the guy who claims hes from 2036 has some good but also bad points proofing hes from that time era.
 
The main argument behind the implausability of time travel is that if time travel was possible then there would be people from the future with us now and for that reason time travel will never exist. This however is no means of conclusive evidence that time travel exists. Perhaps no one has this particular part of time, or perhaps they have but are being descrete about it. Perhaps time travel will be made illegal who knows. Either way, i think we are finding more and more things to suggest things we previously assumed impossible are becoming possible in the distant or even near future like time travel, this is also the case with teleportation which is now something that has been performed successfully with sub-atomic particles (and even atoms i think), while these currently have very little use to us other than interest they have the potential to be of major importance. I think it is a matter of time before we have a good understanding how these work

As for explaining how traveling at speeds in excess of that of light i will have to get back to you, it is a very difficult thing to explain over a forum so i am going to work on a diagram
 
Dave A
No it wouldn't be dark, you'd just be hitting things before you saw them.

Say your flying to x, behind x is y, your travelling faster than the speed of light so you only see y but you haven't got to x yet. As you get to x you can no longer see y even though it's further away but now yo can see z which is behing y. I think that's it anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking it may not matter? Say you're traveling directly towards the sun at faster then the speed of light. When you get to 50m away from the sun it doesn't really matter how fast you're going, because the light from the sun still only has to go 50m regardless. Ehh, right? (Help!)
 
I'm thinking you're dead before you get within 50m of the Sun.

It wouldn't be dark travelling faster than c just as long as you're not doing it in the dark, as Famine said. Umm... that's a very obvious statement, but I felt it needed saying. So you've all been warned: If you're going to travel faster than light, please do so in a well lit environment. OR use a warp bubble and avoid the whole space-time discontinuity altogether...
teleport.gif
[nerd]

Famine
Exactly. The further you look, the further back in time you see. If you can then set off towards the objects at speeds in excess of the speed of light (not impossible) you can travel back in time - you're overtaking the light - and the object would appear to move backwards.
Click to expand...
I don't think so Famine.... I'm not sure if the analogy fits perfectly, but I've always compared that phenomena to the Doppler Effect with sound.
If you approached something at a speed near to or in excess of c, it would appear to be on Fast Forward>> to you because its light (or its time) is 'hitting' you faster than your time is passing.

Famine
If you were to look backwards on the path you've taken, your origin (one would assume to be the Earth) would also appear to move backwards.
Click to expand...
I believe you got that bit right.

Another way to look at it might be to consider waves coming from some source (a thrown rock, etc) in a pool of water - assume the pool is unbounded so there is no reflection of waves.
If you move away from the source of the waves, it will take longer for the next wave in succession to hit you. If you move faster than the waves are propagating you will encounter older waves - like moving backwards in time.
If you move directly towards the source of the waves, the waves will hit you more quickly than if you had remained still - like accelerating time.


I've always wondered what exactly would happen to an object's shadow if at any point in its history its velocity exceeded c. Would the shadow be detached for the rest of the object's future, or only while the object is traveling in excess of c? Or, would nothing happen to it at all?
My thinking is that if time is determined by c, and shadows can only travel at c, then an object's shadow should be sent to its past (or the object sent to the shadow's future). By the time the shadow is cast onto a nearby surface, the object that cast it would be some distance ahead.
I call this the Peter Pan Effect (not to be confused by the less than mediocre album released by Robert Marlow).
 
wow...i never knew other people would bring this thing up.

i remember last year..in math class, our teacher suddenly began talking about moving against Earth's time zones. He said "if you can move fast enough without having the Gs kill you, you may be able to travel back in time." I then said "how is that possible? Even though you are moving, time on Earth stays the same, therefore, not changing anything at all."

now....what do you guys think?
 

Latest Posts

Back