It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The reason Time Travel can't exist

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
well technically in math class we learned a line never ends like a coordinate plane thing......there are negatives and positives.....negtives would probably be before time began and the positives would be when there was time.....itll keep stretching and stretching


If Time doesn't have a begining, it cant have a zero. If it cant have a zero, it cant have a positve or negative. Time has always existed, and as I said before, the Big Bang was just an event in Time, perhaps to be repeated again, as another poster said. Maybe there is a period of "nothingness" before the Big Bang, a place where if you "went to" it using a time machine, you would cease to exist, in ALL timelines, dimensions, and/or universes. Maybe there is a sudden collapse right before the Big Bang and you get sucked into a massive black hole. What if the Big Bang was a very large super nova? I know super novas apply to only stars, but what if? If thats true, than like stars, there could be more than one universe, outside of our own (which is very possible with the recent "width of the Universe thread). Time is forever; Time as the concept has no begining, no end. Humanitys time obviously had a begining, and it must have an end - maybe multiple beginings and ends (as the cycle continues).

That was alot of unorganized sentences, but hopefully you take in the information and reply!




posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
Time can be both negative and positive on an infinite timeline. Since theoretically it is a timeline you could travel back in it.


That's like saying it's possible to eat -5 apples.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:57 AM
link   
You could eat -5 apples, if you've eaten at least five apples, because the molecular components would be subtracted from your body. And even if you hadn't eaten those apples, the molecular components could still be take away if they exist in your body....or you could break it down further by subtracting at an atomic level from your body...



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I think Time does have a beginning. well for humanity i think time has two beginnings to

Time 1 is the birth of the universe. Since time is dynamic and the univerese is expanding time travels at the speed of light. The speed of light is time.

Time 2 is consiousness. Time as I look at it, begins at your conception and ends at your death. I live for life, and dont believe in an after life. Anything else is a bonus....

Also time travel is possible. Its been proven, just not on a massive travelling scale we cannot travel fast enough yet.

"Einsteins theories of general and special relativity can be used to actually prove that time travel is possible. US Government research experiments have yielded experimental data that conclusively illustrate that fast moving aircraft have traveled into the future"

www.iit.edu...

Astronaughts have long been none to come back to earth younger. Only 1/100s of a second but its true.

I dont believe in being able to travel back in time, since we would expect to see time travellers from the future here today. Thats pretty simple way of lookign at it but blatenty obvious.

Also gravity can bend time, this is an interesting fact and could be the answer to future time travel, US companies have been working on Antigravity propulsion for decades. As well as worm holes etc, but thats a whole other game we dont understand.... There are still some unknowns that are still yet to be discovered in our universe. Things that dont adhere to basic principles. Look at Neutrinos, only recently discovered to travel at the speed of light with no mass, they are basically the fundamental particles that make up the universe. They bombard us all the time flying thew earth you me and I. 100 billion neutrinos pass through your thumbnail every second....



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
You could eat -5 apples, if you've eaten at least five apples, because the molecular components would be subtracted from your body. And even if you hadn't eaten those apples, the molecular components could still be take away if they exist in your body....


Oh man, I expected such a reply from someone, just not from you...
Let's get this straight, you can not eat -5 apples, even if eating an apple would be the same as "adding the molecular components to your body" which it is not.



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   
No beggining at all for universe. Something was just there. This is undeniable. Somthing was there and that implies that something had no beggining.

Actually I do not think the universe has a begining because something had to be there to start it. If it was there then it did not have a begining, but a different form. Weather that form was a particle, god or a cloud of gas no one knows, and I do not think we will ever know.

There is no doubt that god exisits because god is the creator and if god is a particle with no inteligence as we know it, or god is a super being, or consiousness. There was in fact a creator (some thing) that can be called god (creator of universe).

So the real argument is weather god is intelligent or consious being or a particle/energy/gas cloud (something that started it all and had no begining). So in fact time had no beginging because something has always exisited, without a begining. If sometihng has always exisited without a begining then time cannot have a begining at least not for god (creator).

You cannot deny something has always exisited without a begining, because that would be denying that anything exisits at all.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Xeven]



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Very good points on both sides. Let's keep the debate rolling!



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   


Let's get this straight, you can not eat -5 apples, even if eating an apple would be the same as "adding the molecular components to your body" which it is not.

Well, if time travel worked in the way that it reverses you as it reverses time, than that is essentially what is being done. Tell me how it isn't like adding/subtracting something...give some substance to what you are saying? Maybe this will spur a discussion about AGE-REVERSAL...



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
No beggining at all for univerese. Something was just there. This is undeniable. Somthing was there and that implies that something can have no beggining.

Actually I do not think the universe has a beggining because something had to be there to start it. If it was there then it did not have a begining but a different form. Weather that form was a particle, god or a cloud of gas no one knows, and I do not think we will ever know.

There is no doubt that god exisits because god is the creator and if god is a particle with no inteligence as we know it, or god is a super being or consiousness there was in fact a creator (something) that can be called god (creator of universe).

So the real argument is weather god is intelligent or consious being or a particle/energy/gas cloud (something that started it all and had no begining). So in fact time had no beginging becasue something has always exisited without a begining. If sometihng has always exisited without a begining then time cannot have a begining at least not for god (creator).

You cannot deny something has always exisited without a begining because that would be denying that anything exisits at all.


technically the universe has an end....lets say you travel a jillion lightyears and find yourself at the edge which keeps on growing growing and growing.....since time traveling is just time traveling to another time period you would be a million miles away from earth when you come out of the time warphole wormhole blackhole or whatever and die instantly of explosion due to our body's innard pressure......oh well time travel exists its just that when you do you die instantly until you can find out a way to teleport and time travel at the same time so you dont end up a million miles away from earth........whether you argue or not it exists.....you just gotta travel faster than the speed of light......and at a negative speed to go backwards in time.....like uhhh....minus whatever lower than the speed of light is in a negative number....you will travel back in time....oh well thats my theory



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Jamuhn.

My point was to say that the whole concept of reversing time makes no sense.
Time-flow can not be smaller than 0, it can get close to 0 by achieving light-speed, but it can never be exactly 0 or lower.
Just like we can't move slower when we are allready standing still.
Or are you going to tell me it's possible to decrease your speed when you're allready standing still as well?



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
My belief is that time isn't linear and that in another dimension all time exists...time travel would be going to that dimension to the specified time and place and then inserting yourself back into this dimension

btw...scientists don't know everything...if they did, the world would probably be a better place (being optimistic)...therefore, a lot of these theoretical discussions go nowhere because the fact is you know as much as I do and vice versa...which is close to nothing



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Well technically speaking, no you cant eat -5 apples, but you can throw them up.

Same thing is true for time. If you've been through it, why can't you go back to it?



posted on Jun, 2 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   
good point, philosophically speaking, and under the common perception as the universe being the only thing in existence, shouldn't traveling in the past be easier than the future, since the past has already existed and the universe probably knows what its structure was assuming the universe itself is conscious. Aren't there something called time trails, i know I've heard that somewhere?



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrJingles
Well technically speaking, no you cant eat -5 apples, but you can throw them up.

Same thing is true for time. If you've been through it, why can't you go back to it?


Actually, technically you CAN eat -5 apples, just like technically an egg CAN unbreak. Just reverse the process and if all molocules and the other warm fuzzy stuff were reversed, it can technically happen. Now, why does it not... ENTROPY. If something can happen then it can be reversed as long as the physics are only reversed. ENTROPY says that there is probably a 99.9999999999999999E% chance that it wont.... But, cannot TECHNICALLY say it will not happen. Entropy.......You just need to figure out that almost inconceivable 00000000000000000.....1%.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 06:01 AM
link   
No, technically you can't eat -5 apples either.
Look at the verb "eating".
What does it mean?
It's a paradox.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
ok, then how about uneat and apple... the opposite of eating it. Sorry, thought is was clear....



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
well, im sure theres never been a use for the word "uneating"...if we havent discovered time travel or age-reversal yet, then of course such a word wouldnt be in our language...i thought entropy explained it a little better...no simple language quibbles...



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
It is impossible to uneat an apple. For if YOU travel back in time only YOU travel back in time. time is not reversed time does not move backwards you move from one time to another.

Time is relative



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I'll start by saying that, although i have no academic qualifications to back up what i'm about to say, who has? Time travel hasn't been proved or disproved, because some theories support it and some don't. Some of the greatest minds we know of have worked on the Theory and still there is great arguement and debate. Technologically we are still in our infancy, and progress in many areas is moving along at an 'alarming rate'. But as to the question that time is a human perception; do swallows use a clock to fly south, does a sparrow turn in for the night by the clock...no as our ancestors did, they use the Sun or the Moon....our solar systems own clock...that they are 'seasons' and not seconds or equinox and not days, doesn't seem to deter their perception of time.It may be primitive...but weren't we all once? I'm not sure if time travel is possible...but trust me...humans are gonna have a real good try at cracking this egg...because as we look to distant galaxies there seems to be 'at the moment' only one possibility of getting there...and sometimes having no other choice, is the true mother of invention.



posted on Jun, 3 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   



We know that matter can bend space-time and according to Einstein's theory, matter and light are both forms of energy. So why can't light bend space-time?


Is somewhat like saying.


We know that a horse can hold the weight of someone, and according to biologists, horses and rabbits are both animals, so why can't a rabbit hold someone?




Yeah. Exactly.

A rabbit can hold the weight of someone, it's just that the rabbit doesn't do as good a job because it is a much smaller weaker animal.

A photon likely does bend space, but it doesn't take part in gravitational reactions, so it may not bend space at all - the thing is that we don't know. That's quantum gravity, something we haven't found a very lovable theory for yet.

People, please: Time travel is obviously not stopping the progression of our universe, then reversing it, without reversing your own, then stopping it again and setting it into normal motion. It is jumping from universe to universe that were created at different times and therefore sit at a different position in time than we do. Example: A universe exactly like ours, only created fifty years after ours would be in the year 1954! Now, of course, I'm using 'years' to define it.

Think of this from the standpoint of detectability. A little boy knows his mom and probably his grandma, maybe his great grandma, and assuming he has a daughter he'll know her, likely her daughter, and maybe his great granddaughter. The chances of knowing anyone beyond his great great grandma/daughter are just about nonexistent - as far as he's concerned, they might not ever, or have ever existed. The same can be applied to Dimensionary searches. Within our 3 Spacial Dimensions and Time Dimension we will likely be able to locate 3 larger more encompassing Dimensions, and 3 Smaller, curled Dimensions. Our 'Time' only exists for our 3 Dimensional universe, different 3-Dimensional universes could/would have other 'Time' Dimensions for themselves. Outside of all and independent of all however, there would be a governing dimension of time. This would make existence appear as if it were comprised of 11 Dimensions, assuming we could find and identify the independent time. If we couldn't it would be 10 - funny how those two numbers are being debated currently. The thing is, from the smaller 3 Dimensions, someone could be observing 3 larger ones that contained us, and 3 smaller ones that we never detected. They would also never detect those 3 larger than us. It goes both ways.

The above would be much easier if you understood some of Ekpyrosis, which I'm just too darned tired too explain about.

And about my earlier comments in the thread, 'You Suck at ______' is a common joke among me and my friends. Spawning from both a Gary Larson 'Farside' comic in which a band is playing and a knob labelled 'suck' is being turned, and the ingenious idea to 'suck at the internet' from one of my friends, we have engineered an entire line of sayings about how one sucks, and what at. One could suck like 'a bucket of ticks' for example, a common phrase to be heard from one of us is 'You suck at the art of Song like a bucket of ticks!' - all very friendly, and not meant to be insulting, just joking.

Apart from that, yes, I was referring to the fact that Jahmun perceived Jakko's post as an argumentative reply, and they began an unhappy debate - when Jakko didn't even reply to Jahmun. It seemed humorous at the time, sorry.


EDIT: Okay, I've read back through that, and I didn't say about half I meant to - sorry. If there's a specific bit anyone wants clarification on, please ask. I move through a task in my head before completing it, so I thought I had written many more sentences up there.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Viendin]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join