Time travel impossible? Your HT thoughts....

[Sahakiel]

<< I said it was a simple example. >>


It's not a simple example to me. I can see lots of assumptions and variations based on that, so I picked it apart a bit for you to see.




<<

<< << To me, each event produces a result that initiates the next event, and so forth. >>
Classical Mechanics >>
Never been disproved to the point of invalidity. >>


Black body radiation, virtual particles... ? >>


Quantum mechanics explained the discoveries when classical mechanics failed. Still doesn't mean the original ideas of classical mechanics are all false. Same as when Einstein's general relativity took over when Newton's theory of relativity failed.



<< Classical Mechanics can not explain everything. It's incomplete. >>


You noticed. Guess you didn't notice the brief bits of history I keep dropping.



<< Look up event-symmetric universe.

Even better yet, download this book: http://www.weburbia.com/press/. It'll explain it to you in detail. >>


I'll look it up, but seems it may take awhile. Get back to you some other time.




<<

<< << Sorry, it still sounds like a Gold universe. >>

Then I guess we interpret Gold's theory differently. >>

No, it's you who makes your thesis sound like some incarnation of a Gold universe. Try not to. >>


Thanks for just proving my statement on your interpretation.

 

[Agent004]

<< Didn't say time and anti-time annihilate each other. Heck, I didn't even coin the term, wbwither did. I think what he was trying to say is anti-time is moving along time "backwards" and viewing it as "forwards" because that's the way we view time. We see time as moving forward and never backward. >>



Here

1)

<< Take the highway analogy and combine both sides to produce traffic moving in the same lane but in opposite directions. Guess I forgot that step. Creation, annihilation, interaction all on one superhighway. >>









<< Question: what's the difference between necessary and essential? I personally use them interchangeably. >>



I knew( or rather predicted that ) most people use them interchangeably, including myself. That;s why I added the remark in brackets to specify it

Well, ncessary mean it's an needed condition, an necessity. For example, certain chemistry couldn't happen without electrons, then for those chemistry to to work, the electrons are necessary. However, for the same experiments, you can put water into what ever you are testing and it can increase the effect of the chemical reaction, then water is only an essential item. As without it, the chemical reation can still go ahead, eventhough the effect is not as dramatic

Hope this clears up what I mean

 

[RussianSoldier]

...and even if human time travel was at all possible, you would create a paradox...

ex: If you traveled back in time to kill Adolph Hitler, there would be no reason to travel back in time, because Adolph Hitler was dead.

 

[Madjim2k]

I think time travel is not actually physically possible, but it is possible to trick ones self into thinking that you have travelled in time.
By travelling away from an object at a speed greater than light, looking back at the object, it would appear to travel back in time, and you could view events in its history. However, the object is still in the same time line as the viewer, its just that the viewer's perception of this becomes somewhat distorted.

Just my own simple thoughts.....

 

[rock33]

Only a couple hundred years ago people said the world was flat and it was the center of the universe. Both were obviously wrong, but people assumed them to be right because there was no proof to the different. I personally believe that time travel is possible, but it most liely will not be proven in our lifetimes. I do believe that there is a bend in space and something like a wormhole can connect you between the 2 different planes in space. The Nova section on the pbs website has a lot of info on timetravel.....great place to go and read.....enjoy

 

[Greatwolf]

<< Impossible. Travelling back in time would require that every atom, particle, electron, blah blah be in positioned exactly where it was then, in other words, there may be a carbon atom in my leg, which used to be in a well in new mexico in 1974. If someone were to 'travel' back to 1974, it would require that that particular carbon atom be back in new mexico again. Now apply that theory to every single particle in the entire universe, and you see, very easily the problem. That carbon atom does not exist here in my leg, and in new mexico at the same time, allowing somone to 'go back in time' to see it. Time is constant, and always forward moving. Even if some kid genious created a device, which could take a 3 dimensional snapshot of the physical layout of the entire universe, with details down to the smallest partice, gluon or whatever the shiz is, AND a device which could rearrange everything in the universe to a previously recorded state (lets say 1990), the world would appear to be as it was in 1990, but time would have still passed in a forward direction, and the year would still be 2002. Impossible. >>



Sounds a lot like the Omega device in Galaxy Quest. That's exactly what that device does. It rearranges every single atom/particle in the universe to the way it was 13 minutes ago.

 

[NovaTone]

<< I didn't read through all the posts, but I look at human time travel this way:

If [human] time travel was possible, wouldn't we have been visited by tourists from the future? >>



futuristic time police monitor uninitiated "past" time eras and prevent/correct any changes that take place...

 

[Settyboy]

<< I didn't read through all the posts, but I look at human time travel this way:

If [human] time travel was possible, wouldn't we have been visited by tourists from the future? >>


Oh, they do all of the time. They're just careful enough not to post anything on this thread and screw up their present (our future)

 

[ZapZilla]

Is time travel solely limited to, or represented by, a traveler's physical displacement through a medium of time?

Might there be ways other than to view time without actually travelling through it?

Could we in some yet undiscovered way step out of the dimension of our time in order to view it: thus, not only preserving the integrity of time within it's dimension, but also, eliminating paradox and issues of matter-energy-velocity-partical-duality limitations?

When is now? Could a series of nows be represented similar to the way a series of single frames represents a movie?

If each frame of a projection-type movie film is cut out and stacked, like the floors of a tower or the segments of a worm; the length of the worm would depend upon the length of the movie and the size of the now that each frame represented.

In this manner, such a movie-worm, could be viewed frame by frame foreward or backward at will, or in its entirety in one single moment--that is if we had the mental capacity to comprehend such information density.

If our entire time line is thought of as a movie-worm, we would have no way of knowing if our time was being externally viewed.

Indeed, would we recognize/comprehend our time's movie-worm if we saw it?

Lets imagine that our time-worm is being viewed by an external watcher, then could the time of that watcher be "wormized" and viewed by an external watcher as well, and od infinitem?

Now I've gone and given myself a headache, and yet, I'm confident that as soon as I fully comprehend infinity, time travel will be reduced to a triviality.