Does anyone really want to talk about time travel?
- Thread starter RainmanTime
- Start date
"1) Everybody experiences time in a different way. Sometimes you feel like one hour is very long, but then again sometimes an hour will seem to fly by. This means that - although time is measurable in hours, minutes and seconds - your perception of time defines the length of a particular event. For instance: a good 3 hour movie will seem to last shorter than a 2 hour schoolexam. Remember when you were young, you had to wait for your birthday. Nowadays things you look forward to are over before you even notice. Perhaps this is a very abstract, or perhaps even a blunt reference to timetravel, but please elaborate on this nonetheless. "
Yes thats because when you are enjoying your self you are not focusing on time itself, you are focusing on what is stimulating you ie. Watching a movie. When you are bored or anxious you are always looking at the date / time and it seems to go on forever.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
"2) I'm not a very spiritual person. Usually I'm rather sceptic about unexplained phenomena. I also know for a fact there are several valid scientific, psychological explanations for deja-vu's. Still I often have the feeling that I know exactly what's going to happen next. Someone once told me to focus on the present, since deja-vu's are simply said "a miscommunication between your short-term and long-term memory". But there have been occasions where I told people exactly what was going to happen and they were quite baffled when my predictions actually came true. It's almost never more than a minute or even several seconds, but still... Now, again this may sound a bit far fetched, could it be possible that we are experiencing events several days, hours, minutes, seconds or even milliseconds after they actually occur? Could it be that time is ahead of us? "
Gee wiz. Why dont you become the next Naustradamus ? ____________________________________________________________________________________________
I dont understand what you are trying to say in your last paragraph, try again
Yes thats because when you are enjoying your self you are not focusing on time itself, you are focusing on what is stimulating you ie. Watching a movie. When you are bored or anxious you are always looking at the date / time and it seems to go on forever.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
"2) I'm not a very spiritual person. Usually I'm rather sceptic about unexplained phenomena. I also know for a fact there are several valid scientific, psychological explanations for deja-vu's. Still I often have the feeling that I know exactly what's going to happen next. Someone once told me to focus on the present, since deja-vu's are simply said "a miscommunication between your short-term and long-term memory". But there have been occasions where I told people exactly what was going to happen and they were quite baffled when my predictions actually came true. It's almost never more than a minute or even several seconds, but still... Now, again this may sound a bit far fetched, could it be possible that we are experiencing events several days, hours, minutes, seconds or even milliseconds after they actually occur? Could it be that time is ahead of us? "
Gee wiz. Why dont you become the next Naustradamus ? ____________________________________________________________________________________________
I dont understand what you are trying to say in your last paragraph, try again
So Doctor, you are just going to contradict one of the greatest scientists that mankind has ever known?? It has been PROVEN that the faster you go, the slower time goes!! People have done experiments, in which they put clocks in planes and compared them with clocks that stayed on the ground. These experiments showed that clocks on the plane were running behind in time compared with the clocks that stayed on the ground. So it just has been proven to be true, so I don't understand why you say that it is not true. By the way, I wasn't talking about exceeding the speed of light. I don't know what the relativity theory states about what happens to your time if you would travel faster than light. By the way, relativity theory states that nothing with mass can go faster than light, so it's no use talking about what happens to time if you go faster than light speed, since this is not possible, for anything with mass at least.
I think, Cyberjunk, that is important to contradict exsisting theories. Like your famous Einstein. If we don't then we end up taking a rigid stance and neglect the other possibilities that may be glaringly obvious, resulting in missed opportunities.
So, in response to your question, yes, I am contradicting Einstein. This whole time business goes way beyond E=MC2. By being open minded and considering alternative theories then we will unlock all the secrets that ellude us.
Trust me, I'm a Doctor
So, in response to your question, yes, I am contradicting Einstein. This whole time business goes way beyond E=MC2. By being open minded and considering alternative theories then we will unlock all the secrets that ellude us.
Trust me, I'm a Doctor
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
I would like to point out that it is infact labeled a theory, not a rule. Its nothing more than a well thought out guess. And it is open to debate and to be proven wrong, or atleast replaced by a more fitting theory. That, my friend, is how science works.
I would like to point out that it is infact labeled a theory, not a rule. Its nothing more than a well thought out guess. And it is open to debate and to be proven wrong, or atleast replaced by a more fitting theory. That, my friend, is how science works.
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
You don't understand my point. You say: relativity theory does NOT implicate that you can travel to the future. I say that it does, because experiments have proven that at least this consequence of the relativity theory is right. Read again what I have said about clocks in planes compared to clocks that stay on the ground. And the faster you go, the greater the effect is. So how can you say that this very aspect that I'm talking about (not the whole theory, but just the consequence of this theory that you can travel to the future?) is wrong, when it has proven to be right? When it has been proven, it is not longer a theory, but reality.
And for the record: I was NOT talking about exceeding the speed of light. I don't want to make any statements about what happens to your time when you go faster than light. And I don't think relativity theory says anything about that, because relativity theory assumes that nothing with mass can go faster than light. So there wouldn't be much point in discussing situations that can never happen (at least according to the theory).
Furthermore I didn't mean that the whole theory necissarely is right, or that Einstein never made mistakes, I just mean that this particular consequence of the theory, time dillatation, allows you to travel to the future and this has proven to be right, so how can you say it's wrong?
You don't understand my point. You say: relativity theory does NOT implicate that you can travel to the future. I say that it does, because experiments have proven that at least this consequence of the relativity theory is right. Read again what I have said about clocks in planes compared to clocks that stay on the ground. And the faster you go, the greater the effect is. So how can you say that this very aspect that I'm talking about (not the whole theory, but just the consequence of this theory that you can travel to the future?) is wrong, when it has proven to be right? When it has been proven, it is not longer a theory, but reality.
And for the record: I was NOT talking about exceeding the speed of light. I don't want to make any statements about what happens to your time when you go faster than light. And I don't think relativity theory says anything about that, because relativity theory assumes that nothing with mass can go faster than light. So there wouldn't be much point in discussing situations that can never happen (at least according to the theory).
Furthermore I didn't mean that the whole theory necissarely is right, or that Einstein never made mistakes, I just mean that this particular consequence of the theory, time dillatation, allows you to travel to the future and this has proven to be right, so how can you say it's wrong?
Roel van Houten
Quantum Scribe
I know that, but why does it work that way? Like I said it was an abstract and perhaps even blunt reference to timetravel, but in a way it's both funny and interesting that one can almost control how fast time passes just by focussing on something else.
You're the second person on this board to misspell his name. Congratulations!
Do I have to? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
JamesAnthony
Temporal Navigator
I enjoy conversing about multiple futures. What exactly is your theory on how they are formed?
And by the way, what happens if one travels to the past? Can this person return to their present? Or is the relative 'future'(past - present) reset?
James
conkulator
Temporal Novice
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
Hmmm... well, Doctor. I highly respect your stance on science and it has been proven in the past that many so-called "facts" couldn't have been farther from the truth. I'm sure we still think the earth is flat. But what these "facts" lacked in the past was experiment, and for that reason, I think cyberjunk has a point. What I'm getting out of your arguement is that a truth is a lie, and lies can be truth. That seems more philosophical than anything else.
My opinion is that travel into the future is possible, but not according to our enchanted standards. By going around at the speed of light, we're not really "traveling into the future". Rather, waiting around as things go faster than us.
However, the science of time travel will forever be hindered by ethical questions and lack of resources.
Hmmm... well, Doctor. I highly respect your stance on science and it has been proven in the past that many so-called "facts" couldn't have been farther from the truth. I'm sure we still think the earth is flat. But what these "facts" lacked in the past was experiment, and for that reason, I think cyberjunk has a point. What I'm getting out of your arguement is that a truth is a lie, and lies can be truth. That seems more philosophical than anything else.
My opinion is that travel into the future is possible, but not according to our enchanted standards. By going around at the speed of light, we're not really "traveling into the future". Rather, waiting around as things go faster than us.
However, the science of time travel will forever be hindered by ethical questions and lack of resources.
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
Well, quite a bit to go on. To Cyberjunk, the whole clock experiment does not prove that it is possible to travel to the future, it proves that it is possible to alter the mechanics of a machine. A clock is not time, the workings of a clock is not time, and time is not seconds minutes and hours. Time is the progression of matter through dimensions.
To my friend asking about how the future would be affected by interaction with the past, I think the answer has to be that the future would be changed, maybe ever so slightly and unnoticably. I don't think that on your return you would know any difference because you would have learned to accept the differences as your self develops along the new time line. Curse you for making me think about this, it really makes my head ache and my eyes go crossed.
And to Conkulator, as much as I would love to travel to the future, I really can't see it happening. I can't see any ethical problems with it because we would not be do anything that would alter our past, and we certainly wouldn't be passing on any secrets that aren't already known about.
Well, quite a bit to go on. To Cyberjunk, the whole clock experiment does not prove that it is possible to travel to the future, it proves that it is possible to alter the mechanics of a machine. A clock is not time, the workings of a clock is not time, and time is not seconds minutes and hours. Time is the progression of matter through dimensions.
To my friend asking about how the future would be affected by interaction with the past, I think the answer has to be that the future would be changed, maybe ever so slightly and unnoticably. I don't think that on your return you would know any difference because you would have learned to accept the differences as your self develops along the new time line. Curse you for making me think about this, it really makes my head ache and my eyes go crossed.
And to Conkulator, as much as I would love to travel to the future, I really can't see it happening. I can't see any ethical problems with it because we would not be do anything that would alter our past, and we certainly wouldn't be passing on any secrets that aren't already known about.
JamesAnthony
Temporal Navigator
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
I think if someone posts here and doesn't have a sore head, someone else is not doing their job!!
However, may I offer a solution to your 'travel to the future' problem - It's simply a matter of Schroeder's Cat. You know the cat being in a box with a bottle of poison designed to break upon the decay of a radioactive atom. There is only a 50:50 chance that the atom will decay - so how do you know the cat is alive or not? Quantum theory implies that the cat is both alive and dead but only takes one form or the other when an 'observer' opens the box!
Thus your travel to the future would result in the possibility of arriving in one of a multitude of possible futures. this one possible future only becoming the 'real' future for the period of time that you are an observer in this future.
How's your head /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
James
I think if someone posts here and doesn't have a sore head, someone else is not doing their job!!
However, may I offer a solution to your 'travel to the future' problem - It's simply a matter of Schroeder's Cat. You know the cat being in a box with a bottle of poison designed to break upon the decay of a radioactive atom. There is only a 50:50 chance that the atom will decay - so how do you know the cat is alive or not? Quantum theory implies that the cat is both alive and dead but only takes one form or the other when an 'observer' opens the box!
Thus your travel to the future would result in the possibility of arriving in one of a multitude of possible futures. this one possible future only becoming the 'real' future for the period of time that you are an observer in this future.
How's your head /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
James
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
I'm with Cyberjunk as far as the clock experiment is concerned. The clocks in question are atomic clocks, both set to the exact time. As far as I know, atomic clocks do not gain or lose time- ever. They are *the* most accurate way of recording the passage of time as we measure it.
As has been said- one is left on the ground, the other is taken up into a supersonic jet. When the jet touches down, the clock that it carried is slightly off when compared to the one that was left behind- something ridiculous like .000000000000001 seconds- which is a long time for an atomic clock. It's not much- but it is an experiment that can be repeated. The faster the plane goes, the more time the clock loses.
It follows that if a man were able to be accelerated away from the Earth at a speed even far below that of the speed of light (which is still very, very fast), more time would have elapsed than the man could account for by the time he returned to Earth again. From *his* point of view, a journey that takes him three months might actually have taken three years for anybody outside (us, in other words).
That said, I'm not sure I'd class it as time travel in the way that I'd normally think of time travel (man winks out now, re-appears in the future). Sure- the guy's in the future- he's skipped over three years to get there- but he's still lived *through* the entire time. He's just experienced that time at a different rate to the rest of us.
My head hurts now...
I'm with Cyberjunk as far as the clock experiment is concerned. The clocks in question are atomic clocks, both set to the exact time. As far as I know, atomic clocks do not gain or lose time- ever. They are *the* most accurate way of recording the passage of time as we measure it.
As has been said- one is left on the ground, the other is taken up into a supersonic jet. When the jet touches down, the clock that it carried is slightly off when compared to the one that was left behind- something ridiculous like .000000000000001 seconds- which is a long time for an atomic clock. It's not much- but it is an experiment that can be repeated. The faster the plane goes, the more time the clock loses.
It follows that if a man were able to be accelerated away from the Earth at a speed even far below that of the speed of light (which is still very, very fast), more time would have elapsed than the man could account for by the time he returned to Earth again. From *his* point of view, a journey that takes him three months might actually have taken three years for anybody outside (us, in other words).
That said, I'm not sure I'd class it as time travel in the way that I'd normally think of time travel (man winks out now, re-appears in the future). Sure- the guy's in the future- he's skipped over three years to get there- but he's still lived *through* the entire time. He's just experienced that time at a different rate to the rest of us.
My head hurts now...
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
Head aches really bad now.
But the point I'm making about the clock experiment is that they are still clocks. Atomic or not, they are mechanical devices. Mechanical devices that can still be affected by outside influences. Time is not measured by a clock. A clock measures an arbitrary scale that humans have applied to a certain phenomenon that is outside our control. The clock experiment THEORY is sound, that we travel wherever for a certain amount of time and back on Earth a different amount of time has elapsed, but it is only a THEORY that has been tested using a mechanical device. It was only in the late 1970s that scientists agreed how long a second would be, and that was something to do with a chemical vibrating or something.
Time as we know it is arbitrary. That's how we can travel to a different day in seconds by stepping over the international date line. The phenomenon that we call time is unmanipulatable and is constant.
Jelly baby anyone?
Head aches really bad now.
But the point I'm making about the clock experiment is that they are still clocks. Atomic or not, they are mechanical devices. Mechanical devices that can still be affected by outside influences. Time is not measured by a clock. A clock measures an arbitrary scale that humans have applied to a certain phenomenon that is outside our control. The clock experiment THEORY is sound, that we travel wherever for a certain amount of time and back on Earth a different amount of time has elapsed, but it is only a THEORY that has been tested using a mechanical device. It was only in the late 1970s that scientists agreed how long a second would be, and that was something to do with a chemical vibrating or something.
Time as we know it is arbitrary. That's how we can travel to a different day in seconds by stepping over the international date line. The phenomenon that we call time is unmanipulatable and is constant.
Jelly baby anyone?
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
atomic clocks are foulable like any other device. first thing to keep in mind, an atomic clock "is the general name used to describe any variety of time keeping devices based on the regular vibrations associated with atoms" modern cesium-133 clocks clocks are accurate to one part in 10,000 billion, or one second in 316,000 years. While being exceptional, it shows you that even left alone there is an inherant lag to them. Hydrogen maser clocks are more accurate, but still not perfect. Anyway read up on google about it http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock3.htm to start. acceleration and deceleration cause movement. This movement should be enough to slightly throw the readings off a fraction.
atomic clocks are foulable like any other device. first thing to keep in mind, an atomic clock "is the general name used to describe any variety of time keeping devices based on the regular vibrations associated with atoms" modern cesium-133 clocks clocks are accurate to one part in 10,000 billion, or one second in 316,000 years. While being exceptional, it shows you that even left alone there is an inherant lag to them. Hydrogen maser clocks are more accurate, but still not perfect. Anyway read up on google about it http://science.howstuffworks.com/atomic-clock3.htm to start. acceleration and deceleration cause movement. This movement should be enough to slightly throw the readings off a fraction.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
Hi Folks...I've been gone awhile (traveling thru space, not time!)
So far, I am with The Doctor. But as to time travel and its relation to exceeding the speed of light: Naaaaah.
Abundant evidence in nature shows us that nature exhibits fractal, self-similarity at all levels (e.g. solar systems and galaxies both exhibit spherical structures and obey orbital dynamics of constant momentum). There is reasonable evidence to suggest that the speed of sound and the speed of light are also fractal, self-similar interphases. The speed of sound is an interphase dependent upon the characteristics of a fluid (its density). The speed of light is (possibly) an interphase dependent upon the characteristics of a "superfluid" which is (again) being called an aether, by some of the most reputable physicists of today.
If you are a being with no sight, but only hearing, you will set your "arrow of time" via sound. Hence, anyone/anything traveling faster than the speed of sound would simply appear to violate your arrow of time (causality of events). Therefore, if speed of sound is self-similar to speed of light, then traveling faster than the speed of light would ONLY have the effect of making us believe that the person traveling faster than the speed of light is violating our arrow of time. In this, we would see the "effect" of something the person did, and then we would see the "cause" that the person perpetrated the effect with.
Not the same as time travel.
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
Hi Folks...I've been gone awhile (traveling thru space, not time!)
So far, I am with The Doctor. But as to time travel and its relation to exceeding the speed of light: Naaaaah.
Abundant evidence in nature shows us that nature exhibits fractal, self-similarity at all levels (e.g. solar systems and galaxies both exhibit spherical structures and obey orbital dynamics of constant momentum). There is reasonable evidence to suggest that the speed of sound and the speed of light are also fractal, self-similar interphases. The speed of sound is an interphase dependent upon the characteristics of a fluid (its density). The speed of light is (possibly) an interphase dependent upon the characteristics of a "superfluid" which is (again) being called an aether, by some of the most reputable physicists of today.
If you are a being with no sight, but only hearing, you will set your "arrow of time" via sound. Hence, anyone/anything traveling faster than the speed of sound would simply appear to violate your arrow of time (causality of events). Therefore, if speed of sound is self-similar to speed of light, then traveling faster than the speed of light would ONLY have the effect of making us believe that the person traveling faster than the speed of light is violating our arrow of time. In this, we would see the "effect" of something the person did, and then we would see the "cause" that the person perpetrated the effect with.
Not the same as time travel.
Kind Regards,
RainmanTime
JamesAnthony
Temporal Navigator
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra
A being with it's perception based on sound, could still experience things 'moving faster than sound'. Electricity is not dependent on knowing that light exists, therefore these blind beings could still have a form of telephone which sends signals faster than sound.
They would know that sound is not a definative barrier.
We however have yet to prove that light is not a definitive barrier of speed.
James
A being with it's perception based on sound, could still experience things 'moving faster than sound'. Electricity is not dependent on knowing that light exists, therefore these blind beings could still have a form of telephone which sends signals faster than sound.
They would know that sound is not a definative barrier.
We however have yet to prove that light is not a definitive barrier of speed.
James