An idea I just had about time travel

[grizzly hebert]

Originally Posted by Credo

Originally Posted by Big J 33

Originally Posted by JohnnyRedStorm



Interesting

Source?

Probably a mechanic

  

 

[tr1ll]

Originally Posted by pr0phecy718

Originally Posted by Tr1ll

IF we did have visitors from the future, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't tell us, as it could possibly alter the time they came from.

Speakin of time travel, there's one thing that alwasy bugged me about BttF2. Why was old Marty suprised to see, young Marty? Would he be expecting to see him. Its already happened in his mind. Off topic, I know.

Wouldn't you be shocked yourself if you were in that position?   

 I mean yeah, it would be expected...but it would still be shocking

It would be a memory so it shouldn't be that suprising.On the other hand, you wouldn't even be there, becuase you left.

 

[kdawg]

There's a theory a bit like this that when a time machine is invented it will only be able to go back as far as when it was invented - because if it can go back it's a paradox.

Bit Star Trekky that one but it sort of makes sense to my tiny brain.

 

[|A-Man|]

1st off there could be a bunch of time travelers that have traveled to the past and/or our time. It does not mean they have to make themselves known. If they did they'd be changing their present and future.

Secondly, I don't know where you got the idea that "if a time machine were invented, you could only go as far back in time as when the machine was actually invented." That just sounds like a made up rule that limits the meaning and purpose of time travel.

It reminds me of the rule that if you traveled in the past you could never change anything "what happened, happened" and other made up rules like you can't interact with your past you can only watch it., if you interacted with a past version of yourself it'd be a paradox and you and or the universe would implode, etc.

Originally Posted by FEETure

i dont understand why people even discuss time travel as realistic possibility. theres definite entertainment value in it of course

think about, if i go back in time 50 years no one would be there. we arent constantly making copies of our selves like timestamps.

to assume time travel is possible is to also assume that there is past version of you that exist for every single second you have ever existed as well as for the future where you have yet to exist.

This makes no sense either. If I want to travel to a time before I was born why wouldn't I be able to? Why wouldn't I exist and why wouldn't anyone be there?

If I am born, live for a decade or three and then travel to a time before I was born it does not mean I would not exist. It has nothing to do with making copies of yourself. Exactly how is time travel assuming their are past versions of yourself in a time where you weren't born yet? If I travel to 1852 how is that me assuming there's a past version of myself already there if I haven't been there? That would be a future version of myself that has already left.

I also don't know why you're assuming time is linear.

 

[yeah]

A lot of you need to read this. http://www.guardian.co.uk...sts-prove-einstein-right

Assuming that Einstein's theory was right (most modern scientists agree that he was the closest thing to right, if not entirely right,) time travel is literally impossible. Look at the equation V = dX/dT (anyone who took high school Physics should recognize this equation.)

If an object moves over a distance of X, there is an elasped time T. Since time is defined as a degree of freedom that measures change over a certain distance, the equation for velocity over a single time axis must be V = dt/dt, which is self-referential.

 To make it a little simpler, to move from position A to position B takes a certain amount of time. Time is a parameter used to measure change, regardless of the rate of change. Therefore, to change your position within time, you would need a second time dimension. And to change your position within the second time dimension, you would need a third time dimension. It's like dividing by zero.

The only way to make it work would be to discover a way to enter into the higher dimensions (humans are 3-dimensional, but there are theories that support far more dimensions) that are, in at least some fashion, intersecting with the time dimension at a quicker interval than the time dimension intersects with the Space (or distance) dimension, since both space and time move linearly according to Einstein.

whew.

 

[bruce negro]

Hmmm... Interesting, but here's another theory I'd like to propose that kinda/sorta breaks your theory a bit.

Let's assume that time is a continuum (it's believed to be so). Time flows via events that happen continuously, an infinite string of cause and effect actions. One decision in the past, even as small as what flavor of ice cream you choose, could have a potential effect on what happens next. As we live now, we are essentially the constant "effects" of a past of "causes."

Ok, so I'm finally getting to my point here... If someone were to go BACK in time, from that point onward, they would create a whole new plethora of "causes", resulting in an infinite amount of "effects" different from the original effects. Basically, if I were to travel back to 1980 right now, my present in itself could possibly create an infinite amount of different effects which, in turn, would not lead to our current state of effects right now, in 2012. What I'm getting at is this: I believe that if you WERE to travel back in time, you would create something like a parallel universe, which would branch from the one we're currently in at the exact moment I created a different cause resulting in a different effect. There are also a few more possibilities, but I'd rather not ramble for too long. If anyone shows interest then I'll list them.

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by FEETure

i dont understand why people even discuss time travel as realistic possibility. theres definite entertainment value in it of course

think about, if i go back in time 50 years no one would be there. we arent constantly making copies of our selves like timestamps.

to assume time travel is possible is to also assume that there is past version of you that exist for every single second you have ever existed as well as for the future where you have yet to exist.

I havent read everyone's posts yet, but I just wanted to address this now. I'll read everything else later.

 

[jordanhead718212]

Originally Posted by B fr3sh

maybe because right now, in this timeline, the future does not exist, yet, so a time machine hasn't been invented. but when the time comes and a machine is created, i think every time a person travels through time a parallel universe would be created.... uh, man i forgot where i was going with this,

goodnight.

 

[zapatohead408]

what if somebody were to travel forward in time get a time machine that could go back further than it was invented because technology advances, and you go back in time with that time machine, leave it in the past so know you can travel at any date you desire and by the time you go back to the future they have already developed more where you can travel. It would need some GPS though because you'd get lost throughout the years going back to the dinosaurs and such and never be able to find your real dimension, thus you're left searching through the years looking for other time machines.

 

[air freshh 23]

they need to bring out final fantasy 13 versus, the announcement was like six years ago

they slackin'

 

[zapatohead408]

Originally Posted by rice boy 45

Originally Posted by ATLien Seeko

Originally Posted by tee eye ehm

Pass that! 

I knew this would be the first response, followed by about 10 more of these.

Pass that!

 

[yeah]

I'm interested, [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Bruce Negro[/color]. But I have to respectfully disagree with your general theory. This is, of course, all based on Einstein and whether or not he was true. In his theory time is not an Eucildean continuum, like yours seems to be (a basic description here: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac...uchii/Einstein/nonE.html )

In your theory, Time is not a measurement of change but rather an indicator that is occurring. That is, to say, without this cause-and-effect relationship, time would not be able to exist without the passing of events (which I think is a fallacy, because if every single thing stopped moving on Earth at the same moment, Time would continue to exist... there just wouldn't be anyone to measure it.)

What you are describing is not time, but rather the existence of multiple timelines (alternate realities.) There is no way to prove that a minute choice in the past would change the future, as that is a contingency perpetuated by scientists of the modern era. Based on Einstein, it is not possible to time travel. Only to 'speed up' (so to speak) to near light speed, in which you are moving faster than every other thing in existence, so 5 years to an object moving at a regular pace would be 2 years to an object moving at light speed. But there wouldn't be any ability to go back.

Personally, I like to think that time travel might be able to exist based on the video that Seeko posted (which is mind blowing, by the way,) but mathematically I don't think it's possible, and for moral reasons I NEVER want humans to be able to time travel.

 

[stopit5]

Time is a myth.

 

[zapatohead408]

Originally Posted by Yeah

I'm interested. But I have to respectfully disagree with your general theory. This is, of course, all based on Einstein and whether or not he was true. In his theory time is not an Eucildean continuum, like yours seems to be (a basic description here: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac...uchii/Einstein/nonE.html )

In your theory, Time is not a measurement of change but rather an indicator that is occurring. That is, to say, without this cause-and-effect relationship, time would not be able to exist without the passing of events (which I think is a fallacy, because if every single thing stopped moving on Earth at the same moment, Time would continue to exist... there just wouldn't be anyone to measure it.)

What you are describing is not time, but rather the existence of multiple timelines (alternate realities.) There is no way to prove that a minute choice in the past would change the future, as that is a contingency perpetuated by scientists of the modern era. Based on Einstein, it is not possible to time travel. Only to 'speed up' (so to speak) to near light speed, in which you are moving faster than every other thing in existence, so 5 years to an object moving at a regular pace would be 2 years to an object moving at light speed.

word, like if I go up in a space ship into outer space and come back a year later a couple thousand years will of had to passed by on earth and I'd still be two years older while everybody else is dead.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by Yeah

A lot of you need to read this. http://www.guardian.co.uk...sts-prove-einstein-right

Assuming that Einstein's theory was right (most modern scientists agree that he was the closest thing to right, if not entirely right,) time travel is literally impossible. Look at the equation V = dX/dT (anyone who took high school Physics should recognize this equation.)

If an object moves over a distance of X, there is an elasped time T. Since time is defined as a degree of freedom that measures change over a certain distance, the equation for velocity over a single time axis must be V = dt/dt, which is self-referential.

 To make it a little simpler, to move from position A to position B takes a certain amount of time. Time is a parameter used to measure change, regardless of the rate of change. Therefore, to change your position within time, you would need a second time dimension. And to change your position within the second time dimension, you would need a third time dimension. It's like dividing by zero.

The only way to make it work would be to discover a way to enter into the higher dimensions (humans are 3-dimensional, but there are theories that support far more dimensions) that are, in at least some fashion, intersecting with the time dimension at a quicker interval than the time dimension intersects with the Space (or distance) dimension, since both space and time move linearly according to Einstein.

whew.

With Einstein's theory most likely being right for everyday physics everybody should know it doesn't account for the strange and sometimes inexplicable things that occur in quantum physics. To me the answer or counter theory would be lie there.

What bruce negro and B fr3sh are talking about are alternate timelines. Parallel universes in essence exist without the interference of a time travelers interference/actions but the idea that if you made one choice in this universe a parallel version of you made the opposite or another choice in that universe.

 

[jking0821]

Actually time travel is possible.  It was proven some what recently

Time passes more slowly the closer you approach the speed of light -- an unbreakable cosmic speed limit. As such, the hands of a clock in a speeding train would move more slowly than those in a stationary clock. The difference would not be humanly noticeable, but when the train pulled back into the station, the two clocks would be off by billionths of a second. If such a train could attain 99.999 percent light speed, only 1 year would pass onboard for every 223 years back at the train station.

Here is an article discussing how it actually is possible

http://news.discovery.com...ime-travel-possible.html

Also here is an article that proves Einstein wasn't exactly right.  They have made neutrons travel faster then the speed of light which was literally the basis of all physcis when it comes to time and space

http://www.guardian.co.uk...-still-faster-than-light

So yes in theory time travel is possible.....but we aren't today at least very close to getting a human moving at those speeds

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by Yeah

I'm interested, Bruce Negro. But I have to respectfully disagree with your general theory. This is, of course, all based on Einstein and whether or not he was true. In his theory time is not an Eucildean continuum, like yours seems to be (a basic description here: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac...uchii/Einstein/nonE.html )

In your theory, Time is not a measurement of change but rather an indicator that is occurring. That is, to say, without this cause-and-effect relationship, time would not be able to exist without the passing of events (which I think is a fallacy, because if every single thing stopped moving on Earth at the same moment, Time would continue to exist... there just wouldn't be anyone to measure it.)

What you are describing is not time, but rather the existence of multiple timelines (alternate realities.) There is no way to prove that a minute choice in the past would change the future, as that is a contingency perpetuated by scientists of the modern era. Based on Einstein, it is not possible to time travel. Only to 'speed up' (so to speak) to near light speed, in which you are moving faster than every other thing in existence, so 5 years to an object moving at a regular pace would be 2 years to an object moving at light speed. But there wouldn't be any ability to go back.

Personally, I like to think that time travel might be able to exist based on the video that Seeko posted (which is mind blowing, by the way,) but mathematically I don't think it's possible, and for moral reasons I NEVER want humans to be able to time travel.

My brain has taken me here as well. I posted this before back in 2009 or something, but since it's relative, I'll post it again... Also, I dont study physics or deep sciences, so dont take what I'm saying any more serious than a creative thought that could be true.

Also, it address this, and I somewhat agree:

Originally Posted by STOPIT5

Time is a myth.

I started thinking and philosiphying about light and time and I came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as time. This is why... So you've heard that it takes the light from the sun 8 minutes to get to earth because it's so far away, right? So think about this... When you look up into the sky in the day time, you're seeing "8 minute old" light. Which means you're almost looking into the past. Which also means that the sun could actually not even be there at that moment due to whatever strange phenominal force taking it out, and we wouldnt know until 8 minutes later. Take a second and think about that if you have to... SO... From there, I started thinking furthermore about the subject and I thought about lights speed and came to another conclusion. The next one is that if you could somehow go faster than light "time" would HAVE to slow down or warp or something. That's because you would then be entering into "old light" that had already traveled past you and all the "new light" now takes "a longer time" to reach you or it might not ever if you never stop going faster than light. Now what would happen if you were to go exactly at the speed of light? Would we even be able to see? I say this because we have the ability to see because of light bouncing off of objects and the objects relaying the information about the object back to our eyes. So if we were to go AT the speed of light would everything behind you stand still and everything in front of you would just be a white or colorful blur?

 

[dropten]

Our concept of time is exactly what it is. 'Our' concept. We are on 1 of many plaines of existence in which every humans mind is tuned to. Each plain of exisitance is on a different wave length. For someone to travel back in time, they would have to travel on that wave length. No only that, but there minds must also be tuned to that existence. So its possible that someone/something has already time traveled but not to our existence. 
IMO

 

[taymane23]

maybe time travelers are invisible to our eyes on this plane.

 

[zapatohead408]

or maybe they studied us in the future and they're able to blend in.

 

[wr]

What is your concept of time when you leave the planet? How can you decipher night from day when you don't have feet on the ground?

Is there even a concept of direction when you are in space? (up down left and right) Are stars and planets are only source of reference in space or does space have a magnetic north and south pole as well?
I know it sounds funny, but I think time travel could be a lot like we see in the movies like Harry Potter. Where if you can time travel, it's like a privilege and it's shrouded in secrecy. Much like if you have a classified job where you can't really tell people what you do for a living. 

In short, if time travel does exist, I think there may already be some sort of regulation or police force guarding  the gates to keep chaos from other parts of the universe or multiverse from reaching far to other planes of existence. 

My idea of time travel has been in line with the dimensional travel brought up earlier in this thread.  

 

[51and3rd]

 

[buggz05]

Maybe human bodies and physical material cannot travel through time or at the speed of light, but maybe small particles such as binary information, neutrinos or qubits can. Like binary code could be sent back in time to relay information to a wireless qubit receiver, after a wireless qubit transmitter of sorts has traveled faster than the speed of light over so many years. Then we could have newspapers in the morning, and futurepapers in the evening before we goto bed.

 

[feeture]

wow, so yall are telling me that if i travel back to may 23rd 2011 i would see my self doing what i did on that day. so this is just like a loop on a tape that never stops. If today i got back a year ago, then next week i say i want to time travel a year and week back, whoever i see would have to be doing the same thing each time, right? that means that somewhere 'in time' there are copies of us reliving the events that occured over an over again, right? sounds so silly to me.

the idea that you can rewind life is so ridiculous. dont even want to talk about fast forward lmao.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by Yeah

I'm interested, [color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Bruce Negro[/color]. But I have to respectfully disagree with your general theory. This is, of course, all based on Einstein and whether or not he was true. In his theory time is not an Eucildean continuum, like yours seems to be (a basic description here: http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac...uchii/Einstein/nonE.html )

In your theory, Time is not a measurement of change but rather an indicator that is occurring. That is, to say, without this cause-and-effect relationship, time would not be able to exist without the passing of events (which I think is a fallacy, because if every single thing stopped moving on Earth at the same moment, Time would continue to exist... there just wouldn't be anyone to measure it.)

What you are describing is not time, but rather the existence of multiple timelines (alternate realities.) There is no way to prove that a minute choice in the past would change the future, as that is a contingency perpetuated by scientists of the modern era. Based on Einstein, it is not possible to time travel. Only to 'speed up' (so to speak) to near light speed, in which you are moving faster than every other thing in existence, so 5 years to an object moving at a regular pace would be 2 years to an object moving at light speed. But there wouldn't be any ability to go back.

Personally, I like to think that time travel might be able to exist based on the video that Seeko posted (which is mind blowing, by the way,) but mathematically I don't think it's possible, and for moral reasons I NEVER want humans to be able to time travel.

Hmm, I see what you're saying, but you understood me wrong a bit. I don't rely on time "measurements" in order to tell me that time exists. I'm also not trying to prove that time travel does exist, just hypothesizing on the possible consequences. Instead, I believe that if we view time as a continuum, as the 4th dimension above us, then everything in our time line is existing all at the same time, just in different places on the timeline. Furthermore, as we are unable to be consciously aware of our past/future selves, we view time as a continuum steadily flowing from the past toward the future, with our conscious selves embodied in the perpetual present. Basically, since we're within that timeline, and we're only at one POINT in the timeline at any time, we can only perceive our actual selves in each and every moment. We are aware of the past, and we aware of the future, but we are only truly EXISTING in the moment we are at now, in that point. And as the continuum progresses, our actions in the past create the conditions of the present, which then create infinite future possibilities.
That being said, if one part of the continuum at one point were to travel backwards through the continuum and enter at a past area, their present would be stuck at that point in the past. This would then allow them to create infinite future possibilities, as we all do anyways. However, if our timeline is viewed as a 4th dimension, then that means the already established continuum--which even reaches to the point where you decided to travel back in time and infinitely further than that--would be broken at the place where you went back in time and started creating possibilities. Why? Because although there are infinite possibilities, in the end one cannot choose infinitely, one may only choose one. This is how time continues, with events and whatnot. Even though there are tons of things that are undiscovered in the universe, they all still belong in this point in time, correct? Meaning that although there are infinite future possibilities, there are only a finite amount of results, which make up the past. However, when you throw something from a different part of the time continuum back into another part of the continuum, a paradox occurs because what used to be a finite amount of results would end up diverging, having to cope with an entirely new, 4th dimensional alteration. 

I believe the results of the above paragraph would come in two forms: Either a branch from the dimension at that point, allowing for a parallel continuum, or present which is being constantly changed and overwritten from the past. In other words, each "moment" could be something completely new, and different from something which only happened a  "moment" ago. A "moment" ago we could have lived in a world where Hilary Duff made a sex tape, or where somebody's marriage failed, but we would never be consciously aware of these different moments because as soon as a different possibility came to fruition in the past because of this outsider, then every part of the past up to the present would be overwritten to match the action. I hope somebody understands this or else it'll just sound like I'm crazy