It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


time travels impossible

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:00 PM
yes, but dosent it seem convienient that the good guys won world war 1, and 2 maybe we had some help
(no offense to germens and jepanese)

posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:29 PM
Thank you Gazrok.

I've been looking across this thread and its one person saying "This would happen." then another saying "You're wrong, This would happen." - I mean, where the hell do they get all this surety?

It's fun to hypothesize, but as you said, this is a spot a little like Quantum Physics, all we can actually do is list probabilities, because there is no way that any of us know.

posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:30 PM
Mirello, 'good guys' is whoever wins, were it that the Germans had won, they'd call themselves 'good guys'.

It wasn't choice by later peoples, it was just what happened. Hitler was a crazy man, and were it that he LISTENED to his generals he might have won, but he didn't, so he didn't.

posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 12:49 PM
Good guys, bad guys, it's all relative....

Do you think the average German soldier, in WWII under Hitler, thought of himself as a bad guy? I doubt it. Likewise with the Japanese soldier, etc.

As one mentioned, had Hitler listened to his generals, and had scientists trusted him with the power (i.e. they lied about an atomic bomb possibility), we'd all be speaking German right now....and Hitler would be (to us) a hero, and the founding father of modern civilization.

It's the old rule... History is written by the winners. No doubt Hitler was a monster, but this wasn't known far and wide until AFTER the far as how far the atrocities went. Just remember, good and evil are all a matter of perception. While we can largely agree Hitler was evil, just on basic human values, the average Joe had no idea what was going on...

Back to the topic though.

Most seem to think of "Time" as some self-correcting entity. I don't think it gives a damn who killed who's father, who became president, etc. Physical matter is physical matter. Could, should, would it exist? I doubt the physical universe would notice....and that's where time travel and alteration starts to fall apart.

For a time traveller to interact with the past, it almost has to go without saying that parallel timelines must exist, or are at least then created as an offshoot of the time alteration. In this case, merely arriving at that point in time (as it didn't occur previously in that timeline) would effectively skew it, and start a whole new timeline, whether there were any further changes or not.

So, if timelines actually exist, then the point becomes...when you go back to your present, are you going along the "altered" timeline, or your "originating" timeline. If both exist, is there a means to choose? Or are you effectively "trapped" on the new timeline?

This would seem to be the premise in "Back to the Future" (arguably one of the most intensive movie projects devoted to time travel), as well as other films ("The Time Machine"), etc. assuming that one is trapped in the timeline they are in, and so are subject to the changes.

Then there's the argument of "same matter, same space/time". The crux of this being the idea that this is impossible (hell, who knows?). Perhaps the question will be solved by explaining "density" and vibration levels of matter?

Remember, what we think of as "solid" is in fact made of mostly nothing but the spaces between particles. It only feels solid because our hand is of a similar density. As a liquid is less dense (difference in the vibration of those particles), our solid hand passes through it, etc. Interesing thought, no?

posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by sanctum
I reckon mirello is Morrisons little brother!!

Haha. Oh yeah, Morrison. With has awesome "glowing rock" that he just happened to find. Man, he was an idiot and a half.

posted on Mar, 15 2004 @ 09:49 PM
I'm pretty sure this same thing has been theorized my may people, including Einstein, Kaku, and the guy in the wheelchair (don't ask why, but I can never remember his name... just his Big Bang theory).

Anyways, time has it's own 3 dimensions. To illustrate this, I'll use the simplest form: XYZ. For the lamen, X is a horizontal path, Y is the vertical path, and Z is the path of depth, or the line that goes from close to you to far away from you.

We are travelling on the Z path... it is, as stated in an earlier post, linear. We go (in our perception) from earlier time to later time. When you go a bit negative on the X axis (left, in visual terms), you are entering a different reality of time, as well as if you were to divert a bit to the positive (or right). Same thing applies to diversions to the positive Y (up) or negative Y (down). Since time is relative, you could travel in a straight line in any direction and have a perceptivly normal timeline, or rather what you would experience would be a normal timeline.... but if you were going in the direction of Ypos and made an immediate jump to a point of time that is in Zneg, you would perceptually be able to notice the changes, because the events that were happenning on the timeline you WERE in wouldn't quite coincide with what is happening in the 'now' timeline that you entered. A larger deviation to the left/right/up/down during your forward path would result in perceptually more awareness of the dimensionality of time because events would have happened/would be happenning in different sequences or whatever from what you were used to.

I believe that time anomolies like this could account for some peoples' (not all, of course...) recollection of doing something during their childhood, having it confirmed, then at a later date having the persons who were thought to be involved saying that "No, that never happened...". I'm sure a majority of people have experienced this in one form or another. As well, Dejavu could also be explained by intersecting occurances of similar timelines... as someone stated before, there is no true paralell. If I remember right, this has to do with something about the perfect shape is that of a sphere, and everything inevitably curves. If time didn't curve, nothing could exist, but I won't get into that... a bit over the top just for the sake of time travel. Basically, a sphere is the best visual representation of true infinity.

So there's a basic explanation of time. BTW, I haven't ever read anything by Einstein, Kaku, or the other guy... my friend always makes reference to them when we start discussing (I theorize, and he tells me of parallell theories by these guys). So, NO LINK FOR YOU! (

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by oba

Star Child
I am ex-military, now independant contractor. I specialize in terrorism threat assessments, physical security, executive protection services, clandestine operations, and other skills, too numerable to mention here. I am overseas right now, at an undisclosed location. Mr. M

that wouldn't be DynCorp would it, just wondering ...

Close, but no cigar. Dyncorp has had too many legal problems recently. I received a job offer from them last month, but I turned it down. Right now I am working with....

Mr. M

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by StarChild]

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 02:26 AM
As far as you and I know time travel is impossible, but that doesn't mean it will never be possible. If there's a day when all the facts of the universe are known or someone builds a time machine, then and only then can we have the answer to that question.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." (Marshal Ferdinand Foch, French commander of Allied forces during the closing months of World War I, 1918)

While it might have been easier to study birds to learn to fly. Only time will tell if studying quantum physics to will lead to any sort of time travel.

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by outsider]

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Jonna

Originally posted by templersstorms1312
I believe that this is only the first time that we have gone through time. so our future self doesn;t exist

You are missing the point completely. What is time? That is the big question. What if it is not what we label it as but instead has something to do with the subatomic speed (rotations, revolutions, etc) of that which exists in space? In this way two objects could exist in the same space and time (as per our definition of time), but at different frequencies/vibrations as to not interact with one another. This would mean that our current definition of time is completely wrong.....or would this be considered a different dimension?

R(f)(SqRt-->)1-(V over C)squared.

According to Einsteins theory of relativity, time would pass more quickly on Earth than it would in a moving spaceship. The above (semi) equation gives the aging rate of a friend on Earth, R(f). In the expression, V is the astronaut's speed and C is the speed of light. So the faster you went the less time took place there, but more time took place on Earth, so once you went awhile, you would have the illusion that you traveled into the future because many more years would pass on earth than in the space ship. Not to mention though, do the math if you were traveling at the speed of light. Because V over C would be 1, then 1 - (1) would give 0. The everyone should know the answer, the squareroot of zero is zero.
But back to my original thought, you would still exist in the future because you were aging slower, but your friends and family would long be dead.

Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relitivity(edited by Gerald Tauber)

Understanding Relativity Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution(By Stanley Goldberg)


posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 08:23 AM
I read an interesting site once on 9 dimensional theory.
what permits movement beyond 3 dimesnions is the natural curvature of all space due to the existence of gravity. (or any force that curves space)
so ALL lines eventually become curves, and the farther out you go, they become spirals.

hence, with the usual 3 dimensions, you can add 3 more to encompass the curve of length, width, and depth.
then with the 4th dimension being time, you can add two more to give time its own width and depth also.

the idea with time travel is maybe where they want to jump over these rungs, like with a slinky, where you jump across the bands of the slinky by going up the side of it. each ring represents "linear" time, but it curves in a circle because of the effect of gravity, only it appears straight from the vantage point of the stationary observer.

so linear time goes around a circle like the band of a slinky, and the time traveller wants to jump across entire bands (like on the side of it)

this doesn't offer much substance for actual time travel, because you really need a lot of specialized equipement, I've been told. I heard of an outfit in the mountains of northern Italy that does time travel by using a lot of sophisticated circuits and sensors, and they use a special tunnel in deep rock because they need the stable coordinates for when they time travel.

another observation is that the actual time traveller (a chrononaut or temponaut) is a crucial factor, because a lot of it involves personal energy fields and whatnot.

that's as far as I want to go on this without getting paid for it. HA HA

good discussion.

hey mirello, if you're really 10 years old .. you must be a pretty smart fella.
understand any of this?
or does it just sound like hot air?

[Edited on 16-3-2004 by oba]

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 01:26 PM
Good post, oba! Thats the part I didn't want to get into... thanks for taking it up, lol. After a couple paragraphs your brain starts to hurt.

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 04:54 PM
first and foremost, i personally believe we live in a universe of infinite possibility so nothing is impossible within the realm of infinity. second, my personal theory on time travel is rather than altering your current reality, you will ultimately create an alternate reality by altering the past thus avoiding some sort of paradox.

posted on Mar, 16 2004 @ 05:26 PM
great thread(except for the peepee poopoo fights).
i agree with the infinite universe theory. infinite. the word says it all. literally.
there is nothing new under the sun. it has already happened, is happeing, will happen all within the eternal now. there are no contradictions, only infinite possibilities.

incidently, popular time travel rhetoric states that if there is a time/logic paradox caused by time travel alterations, that timeline collapses(ie. becomes impossible, thereby ceasing to exist).

posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 12:02 AM
How can you time travel? If you were to time travel in the same universe, you would only be able to travel forward right? Because if you were to travel backwards you wouldnt exist.

If it created an alternate universe when u time traveled, then you would be able to go back in time because that history would have only been created determined by you and your time machine, which would make a history of your time machine. But then I'm sure that simply travelling back in time would definately not created enough energy to create another universe.

posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 12:18 AM
aargh... ok.

Time travel is relative only to the person travelling time. As I stated before, alotof people have had happennings confirmed, only to have them denied at a later date. Everybody shifts time realities naturally, but that shift is so minute that anomolies such as stated before are the extreme. Consciousness only exists in one time, at a time. All other 'you' work off the collective conscience. Basically, through 'spiritual', or natural time shifts, your consciousness is only what shifts. Thus, you are only aware of a single thread of time, which is true. You only travel on one thread of time as a consciousness, thus you are aware of only what's in the 'box'. Ideas actually come from what other 'you' experience in other timelines, in a sense. Everything happens in an infinite timeline of zero. To someone outside the universe, our universe doesn't exist... and it doesn't. To us, we experience time because we are in the occuring bubble of time.

Physical time travel is a bit more complicated... what you are doing at this point is actually shifting your consciousness AND your physical body (and all the other matter that is used to accomplish such a feat) to another time realm. Energy is a whole lot easier to shift through time than matter (a complex of energies... thus you are trying to shift an almost infinite collection of energies rather a finite energy).

Hows that? Does that make sense to anyone else?

posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 12:21 AM
"hands clapping" Bravo EarthScum, I couldn't have said it better myself. Did you get that right out of the encyclopedia or what?

Mr. M

posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 12:23 AM
Time does not exist.

Therefore, time machines don't exist either.

posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Time does not exist.

Therefore, time machines don't exist either.

That is a very good point also. It has been argued that time is relevant. Therefore it could be possible that 1 minute to me is an eternity to someone else, and vice versa.

Mr. M

posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 12:57 AM

Originally posted by StarChild
"hands clapping" Bravo EarthScum, I couldn't have said it better myself. Did you get that right out of the encyclopedia or what?

Mr. M

Lol... I don't know if that was serious or smartass

I don't read much. I just get in deep discussions and thought by myself. Yes, I argue with myself and try to disprove myself... hard to find anyone intellectual to talk to. I started figuring out crap when I threw out anything I ever learned in school about physics. BTW, I am HS dropout (didn't complete 9th grade) and college dropout (3 symesters in graphic arts). So basically I can take a small bit of info, such as time curvature, and understand a whole lot more. I guess you could say I just understand things really easily with a minimal amount of input.

posted on Mar, 17 2004 @ 01:00 AM
No problem, man. I dropped out of high school too. My father forced me to move out when I was 16, so I was working a full time job and paying bills while my friends were in school.

By the way, I was serious. You're response was right on the money, as far as I can tell.

Mr. M

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in