Anyone interested in Time Travel?
- Thread starter Captain Mark
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Craig Smith
That was easy!
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,147
Let's keep in mind that the majority of the stuff this dude talked about is THEORY. Not facts, not anything that can be demonstrated clearly on a bench or in a lab, but THEORY. Way, way, out-of-the-mainstream theory that to most people is incomprehensible so it seems that much more incredible when someone speaks as an authority on it.
It is my opinion that without any tangible evidence to support or disprove any of the material discussed anywhere on that website, all someone has to do in order to pull this off is be charismatic, fairly smart, and know how to present yourself in a convincing manner about subjects your target audience, for the most part, knows nothing about and therefore can't argue effectively. It seems to me that these are the qualities of every successful con artist.
I find the best way to find holes in stories like this is to look at them in the most simplistic manner you can. Look through the technical mumbo jumbo crap and fascinating claims and stack up only the facts. Two of them will somewhere be contradictory to the point that the entire structure shatters when the contradiction is exposed.
Case in point: Our friend George Jetson said repeatedly that FORWARD time travel isn't possible in his vehicle. Well then, HOW THE F*CK DO YOU PLAN ON GETTING BACK TO 2036????????
Sorry, but I can NOT get past this simple point. However, as stated here already, very interesting and entertaining reading.
It is my opinion that without any tangible evidence to support or disprove any of the material discussed anywhere on that website, all someone has to do in order to pull this off is be charismatic, fairly smart, and know how to present yourself in a convincing manner about subjects your target audience, for the most part, knows nothing about and therefore can't argue effectively. It seems to me that these are the qualities of every successful con artist.
I find the best way to find holes in stories like this is to look at them in the most simplistic manner you can. Look through the technical mumbo jumbo crap and fascinating claims and stack up only the facts. Two of them will somewhere be contradictory to the point that the entire structure shatters when the contradiction is exposed.
Case in point: Our friend George Jetson said repeatedly that FORWARD time travel isn't possible in his vehicle. Well then, HOW THE F*CK DO YOU PLAN ON GETTING BACK TO 2036????????
Sorry, but I can NOT get past this simple point. However, as stated here already, very interesting and entertaining reading.
Actually, travelling forward is the "easy" part and has been shown experimentally true (in high energy subatomic particle experiments). Einsteins special relativity theory ("theory" does not mean "hypothetical") teaches us that if a person or object travels near the speed of light (186000 miles per sec), then time slows down for the fast traveller (as "seen" by stationary observers).
So , get aboard a space ship, travel near the speed of light for what "seems" a few minutes or a few hours, and when you return you will find that days, months, or years have elapsed for the people who stayed home. The effect is more commonly referred to as "time dilation".
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
You have in effect travelled into the future. Problem is, there's no known way to get "back", nor is it known if returning back is even theoretically possible.
Ther are some wildly speculative ideas for backwards time travel being proposed by respected professional physicists, but mainly as a means to test their understanding of basic space & time. Of the proponents who think backwards travel is "in principle" possible, even they seem to agree that you can travel no further backwards in time than the original creation of the Time Machine itself.
So if we created one of these timeback machines today, and let it operate for a 100 years, future travellers could only tarvel back to the machine's initial creation in 2004, and no further.
Time-back machines tend to involve wild ideas like manufacturing near-infinitely dense cylinders and spinning them near the speed of light. The results might be similar to revving a stock V6 to 7000 rpm
BlackBeauty
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2001
- Messages
- 403
Actually I thought that he did say it's possible to move forward. That is an extremely interesting read, it's 2am and my eyes are killing me! And I still haven't read the March submissions yet. I like things that make me think. Just sit down and try to picture in your head eternity. Or a limitless universe (do you think there are some walls out in space?). Actually take time to think about it. It will make you nuts!
I personally do not believe that time travel is possible. Time is a reference to describe "location." However, I think that almost every single person in history before 1960 thought it was absolutely impossible to land on the moon. People used to think the world was flat and you'd simply sail right off the edge....
I think I found a snag in his story. The theory of worldlines conflicts with religion. If there are an infinite number of worldlines, that means that every single possibility is being acted out. For simplicity's sake, three worldlines look like this:
-Our current "dimension" is one worldline
-In another, I am an axe murderer
-In the third one, I am a very moral person
John Titor's explanation was that all goods and bads outweigh each other. So pertaining to the after-life, when all versions of myself die, we all collectively go to the afterlife, including the axe murdering one. In Worldline #1 (from above), I read John's schpiel and say, "Screw this, that's not fair that I act morally and get the same treatment... I'm going to go on a killing spree." BUT, I didn't really decide that... it was something that was already decided when the worldline was created. This version of me MUST carry out this variation, because there's another version of me in another worldline that does not carry out the immoral activities. That completely takes away all free will, which God granted us. Since all possibilities simultaneously exist, many versions of me must be doing immoral things. Is it fair to be judged on those things, since making those immoral decisions isn't truly making a decision at all?
Hopefully that makes sense to everyone else... it makes perfect sense in my head.
I also do not think a civil war will occur this year or anytime soon in the US. If he simply said there was going to be a world war, that would be more believable. Another thing, when he abandoned the cities he was part of the militia squad who fought against the the police and organized government. Yet he is time travelling for the government?
I personally do not believe that time travel is possible. Time is a reference to describe "location." However, I think that almost every single person in history before 1960 thought it was absolutely impossible to land on the moon. People used to think the world was flat and you'd simply sail right off the edge....
I think I found a snag in his story. The theory of worldlines conflicts with religion. If there are an infinite number of worldlines, that means that every single possibility is being acted out. For simplicity's sake, three worldlines look like this:
-Our current "dimension" is one worldline
-In another, I am an axe murderer
-In the third one, I am a very moral person
John Titor's explanation was that all goods and bads outweigh each other. So pertaining to the after-life, when all versions of myself die, we all collectively go to the afterlife, including the axe murdering one. In Worldline #1 (from above), I read John's schpiel and say, "Screw this, that's not fair that I act morally and get the same treatment... I'm going to go on a killing spree." BUT, I didn't really decide that... it was something that was already decided when the worldline was created. This version of me MUST carry out this variation, because there's another version of me in another worldline that does not carry out the immoral activities. That completely takes away all free will, which God granted us. Since all possibilities simultaneously exist, many versions of me must be doing immoral things. Is it fair to be judged on those things, since making those immoral decisions isn't truly making a decision at all?
Hopefully that makes sense to everyone else... it makes perfect sense in my head.
I also do not think a civil war will occur this year or anytime soon in the US. If he simply said there was going to be a world war, that would be more believable. Another thing, when he abandoned the cities he was part of the militia squad who fought against the the police and organized government. Yet he is time travelling for the government?
Captain Mark
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2002
- Messages
- 2,051
Originally posted by tom h
Time-back machines tend to involve wild ideas like manufacturing near-infinitely dense cylinders and spinning them near the speed of light. The results might be similar to revving a stock V6 to 7000 rpm
So your saying the time machine would blow a head gasket at that point!
There's been some use of the phrase "world line" ... more appropriate might be the phrase "many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics ", whcih is mildly controversial but has its adherents within the professional theoretical physics community.
A related good introductory article in Scientific American, by Max Tegmark, a respected physicist ...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000
"Parallel Universes
Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations"
Even if parallel universes exist ("Sliders" style), there is yet no known way (even in principle) to ever contact them. This violates a key foundation of modern science, that theories and hypotheses ought to be "falsifiable by observation" ... that's how "wrong" theories are rejected and "correct" ones adopted.
A related good introductory article in Scientific American, by Max Tegmark, a respected physicist ...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000
"Parallel Universes
Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations"
Even if parallel universes exist ("Sliders" style), there is yet no known way (even in principle) to ever contact them. This violates a key foundation of modern science, that theories and hypotheses ought to be "falsifiable by observation" ... that's how "wrong" theories are rejected and "correct" ones adopted.
Captain Mark
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2002
- Messages
- 2,051
So Tom, in your opinion, is time travel possible?
Forward (via "Time Dilation" effect) - Yes. Even though it is presently technologically impractical, ie how to accelerate a life sustaining space ship to near light speeds, but perhaps overcomeable in the next 50-100 years.
But how would you even recruit people for such a journey? "Fly this rocket to the XYZ star system, and when you return, all your friends and families will be long dead, even though you only aged 1 month".
Time Backwards - "maybe" a limited form is possible "in principle". "In principle" meaning it doesn't violate known laws of physics, "limited" meaning backward travel to the date of the Machine's first creation and "turn-on".
But possible "in principle" doesn't mean possible "in practice". So I tend to think it's Not realizeable, except maybe for subatomic particles in some high energy physics experiment, one of these days.
Captain Mark
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2002
- Messages
- 2,051
I'm assuming your read the link at the start of this thread. Is the cutaway drawing of the time machine even close to something that might work, or is it all gibberish? Is this guy just full of bull-techno speak?
It's a clever piece of scifi writingOriginally posted by Captain Mark
I'm assuming your read the link at the start of this thread. Is the cutaway drawing of the time machine even close to something that might work, or is it all gibberish? Is this guy just full of bull-techno speak?
Craig Smith
That was easy!
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,147
The problem with accelerating an object to the speed of light is that as that object approaches warp speed, its mass increases exponentially. The energy required to continue to accelerate this object, with the resources and technology available to us now, is simply out of reach. One day though, I am confident that somone will build a turbo V6 capable of fulfilling the energy requirements of a time machine.
Definitely a fun subject to discuss. Here's a thought: Could our very existence be considered "time travel"? I am constantly being propelled into the future, am I not? Time never stands still and we don't seem to be going backwards... does that only leave one direction?
Definitely a fun subject to discuss. Here's a thought: Could our very existence be considered "time travel"? I am constantly being propelled into the future, am I not? Time never stands still and we don't seem to be going backwards... does that only leave one direction?
Captain Mark
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2002
- Messages
- 2,051
Originally posted by tom h
It's a clever piece of scifi writing
OK, that's what I thought as well.
If nothing else, it is a good read. I'm still plowing throug the Scientific American piece you posted. It may take me a while to get through it. Interesting stuff though.
Captain Mark
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2002
- Messages
- 2,051
Originally posted by bishir
I wish I could go back in time and tell myself not to read this thread!
tminer
Not quite normal
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
- Messages
- 761
Reverse time travel theoretically occurs when travelling faster than the speed of light.
Alledgedly, it has been done in the lab. Some sort of plasma based device that will transmit an electrical signal faster than the speed of light. They ran a signal into it and a conventional circuit in parrallel and the plasma signal was recieved at the other end before the conventional one.
I contend that no real time travel took place. Just that the plasma cicuit was faster than the electrical. One could accomplish the same thing by yelling into a nearby microphone and running the signal a distance to where a second microphone has been placed. Run the two signals into a dual trace scope and you will see that the signal from the mic closest to the yelling will be first. It travelled at the speed of light (electricity) whereas the other one travelled a distance at the speed of sound (yelling to distant mic). Did time travel occur? No, unless one wrongly assumes the speed of time (aka the actual maximum speed achievable) is the same as the speed of sound. And the fact that the speed of light has been surpassed would indicate that the speed of time is also faster than the speed of light. So no time travel.
Unless the plasma signal actually isn't faster than the speed of light, but rather travels through time and therefor only appears to be faster!
Tom
Alledgedly, it has been done in the lab. Some sort of plasma based device that will transmit an electrical signal faster than the speed of light. They ran a signal into it and a conventional circuit in parrallel and the plasma signal was recieved at the other end before the conventional one.
I contend that no real time travel took place. Just that the plasma cicuit was faster than the electrical. One could accomplish the same thing by yelling into a nearby microphone and running the signal a distance to where a second microphone has been placed. Run the two signals into a dual trace scope and you will see that the signal from the mic closest to the yelling will be first. It travelled at the speed of light (electricity) whereas the other one travelled a distance at the speed of sound (yelling to distant mic). Did time travel occur? No, unless one wrongly assumes the speed of time (aka the actual maximum speed achievable) is the same as the speed of sound. And the fact that the speed of light has been surpassed would indicate that the speed of time is also faster than the speed of light. So no time travel.
Unless the plasma signal actually isn't faster than the speed of light, but rather travels through time and therefor only appears to be faster!
Tom
A very interesting read! However, I do not belive him for several reasons:
1) One of the most obvious flags is the time machine itself. John claims that the device weighs 500 pounds or so. One of the pictures shows the device sitting in the pasanger seat of a '67 chevrolett. Something that heavy would realy distort the seat and make a huge imprent. In the picture, the device is making less of an imprent than a toolbox would.
2) Its been a while sence I read the artical but those cylinders in the device were near infinate density right? If so, they would put out enough gravity to warp the earth and pretty much everything else in the solar system reguardless if its on or off (kind of like a black hole).
As for traditional time travel (not the type mentioned in the article) I dont believe its possible. I will not go into it uless you want me to but Ill give you the rundown...
The twin paradox is IMO NOT time travel. It seems like it is from the astronaut's point of view. What is actually happening is a form of "Light speed hypersleep." It is not time travel as we like to think of it.
One more thing... time is mearly a devise by which humans measure change. It is not a tangable variable that can be altered like energy or mass. Therefore, one can not travel (alter) time because time does not exist.
hows that for a mindfull?
BOOSTD
1) One of the most obvious flags is the time machine itself. John claims that the device weighs 500 pounds or so. One of the pictures shows the device sitting in the pasanger seat of a '67 chevrolett. Something that heavy would realy distort the seat and make a huge imprent. In the picture, the device is making less of an imprent than a toolbox would.
2) Its been a while sence I read the artical but those cylinders in the device were near infinate density right? If so, they would put out enough gravity to warp the earth and pretty much everything else in the solar system reguardless if its on or off (kind of like a black hole).
As for traditional time travel (not the type mentioned in the article) I dont believe its possible. I will not go into it uless you want me to but Ill give you the rundown...
The twin paradox is IMO NOT time travel. It seems like it is from the astronaut's point of view. What is actually happening is a form of "Light speed hypersleep." It is not time travel as we like to think of it.
One more thing... time is mearly a devise by which humans measure change. It is not a tangable variable that can be altered like energy or mass. Therefore, one can not travel (alter) time because time does not exist.
hows that for a mindfull?
BOOSTD
Several leading phsyicists have hypothesized along these lines ... that perception of the "flow" of time is a psychological illusion in sentient beings.
"THE END OF TIME
A Talk With Julian Barbour"
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/barbour/barbour_index.html
"A Possible Solution For The Problem Of Time In Quantum Cosmology"
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin/smolin_p1.html
Edge.org is a pretty cool, free-wheeling discussion site, with contributions from many of the leading workers in their fields. No "cranks" there.
And here's something else really wild :
http://www.edge.org/documents/day/day_greene.html
Quantum Physics (aka Quantum Mechanics, or QM), the fundamental basis for nearly every electronic device today, was wild & crazy when researchers were beginning to discover it in the 1910s & 1920s. Down deep, Einstein never could accept the reality & significance of quantum mechanics ... he spent many years trying to debunk certain aspects of it, and failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Can't we just look for a 5 or 6 year old in FL named John Titor?
BTW, did he say one time he didn't need $$, but then later said he uses $$ to buy things?
"All I can think of is to make something up. So here goes: The space shuttle mission may or may not have a problem connecting the new lab to the space station"
When was that space shuttle explosion?
BTW, did he say one time he didn't need $$, but then later said he uses $$ to buy things?
"All I can think of is to make something up. So here goes: The space shuttle mission may or may not have a problem connecting the new lab to the space station"
When was that space shuttle explosion?
Similar threads
