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 travel disproven

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by GeneralMishka

This is what they want you to think?

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 03:42 PM
I'm really shocked at the title of this thread.

Cause, time travel is so fundamental. It's transcending relatively loooong periods of "time" that are currently difficult:

Slowing down time around u is the most basic way to travel into the future, accelerating earth's relative speed in the universe, would actually move it faster into the future

Likewise, to travel back in time you'd slow down compared to the rest of your environment in motion:

If earth, solarsystem, and/or galaxy is travellin faster thru the greater universe, we are time traveling forward. If we slow down, everything else in the universe will travel forward faster, leaving us more "behind" in time

So time is relative, not constant:

A peculiar thing: at the speed of light, time stops! A photon that has travelled billions of light years would arrive at a destination where those billions of light years passed by, but the photon would have not 'aged' a second.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Dreamer99
reply to post by thedoctorswife

It was a very early version of an electronic hearing aid. I thought this was debunked? Or was it de-debunked?

I think it was
I wasnt bringing it up as an example of time travel though, youve misunderstood me, i meant it in the sense that you couldnt use a mobile phone if a reciever wasnt available, and maybe the same applies with time travel.
God, we had some giggles and laughs with that charlie chaplin time travel thread.

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 05:16 PM
reply to post by Dispo

I don't think that it is reasonable to expect t people to read all the posts before they post...

I respond as I read also. Blame that on the system not on the users. There should be sub threads this would also prevent easy derailing and to avoid nonsense.

If it is only a single page I will probably glance the first posts, especially if I'm not very interested in the topic or have nothing really important to state on the subject. I think that is also what you imply by only 6 posts...

edit on 9-1-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in