Time travel in past doesn't sound relastic

RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Sorry, Trott. You know break-throughs can happen pretty rapidly sometimes and I'm not always on top of things. I just didn't know if maybe you were pointing us toward something "specific". Most of what we have access to are attempts to better understand "naturally occurring" states or phenomena in the universe. Do you know of any serious work on exploring the possibility of maipulating space/time? Yeah, I know about that German guy's work. "Can't remember his name right now." A lot of claims, but all he talks about is "speeding up or slowing down" time based on an outside point of reference. Not really the kind of "time travel" I'm interested in.
Rick :-)
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Can someone describe to me how we know that time travel is really possible? And that its not just hollywood bs.

Thanks
Penny
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">< !--[BR>if (navigator.appName == 'Microsoft Internet Explorer')
location.href = 'http://www.pennyhardaway.com';
else
location.href = 'http://www.pennyhardaway.com';
//--]
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

THat was a horrible question, please dont post things like that here any more.
<script language="JavaScript">< !--[BR>if (document.images)
location.replace('http://www.pennyhardaway.com');
else
location.href = 'nextpage.htm';
//--]
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Hi Penny,

There is no certainty in the possibility of time travel. However, science fact does indicate that there are certain scenerios which seem to allow for time travel. In other words, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity does have solutions which allow time travel. This is not to say that time travel is in fact possible, since GR does not take into account quantum mechanical affects. In order to truely know if time travel is possibly or if it will remain just a bunch of hollywood bs, one needs a theory of quantum gravity. In almost all time travel scenerios, one can not travel back beyond the point at which the time machine was made.
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Hey I just found <a href="http://www.pennyhardaway.com">this website</a href> on time travel. I don't understand the concepts though.... can someone please describe them?

Penny
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

I I I I I I I'm a little confused! You see..."somehow by a chance" I got the impression that this is NOT real, you know "sensitive powers". Although I'm not trying to speak for myself. The word "truely" my memory recalls my mistake, is really "truly, instead" That's all! Any comments friends?
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

And "and" by a brief explanation means a word after a comma, but ("but" is another one) you see...it's just style! Style of explaining "in my game" so what the....(?)...uh, anyway I was saying that always when you or someone start a sentence must be with a capital letter. Any comments friends? ah, don't forget I'm learning from you. Thank youuuuuuu...
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

I'm all ears FRIENDS! aND SOMETIMES i DOn't reaLize WHen I'm typing fRieNds. (But listen to this): Have any of you some explaining to my statements? What statements?: The ones I did before, you know, my theories about the "truth of time". IF any of you give me the answer I believe is the correct one, I'll recognize you are good listeners. Remember, it's just my style. And "IF" like the way I present it means "attention from the ordinary", if you understand.
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Penny,
your link did not work, however I'm somewhat familiar with HTML source codes, and looked them up from your post, and this is what I found... http://www.pennyhardaway.com
was this the Link you were attempting to refer to?

either way, it still don't work!
do you have another?

<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 13 June 2001).>
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Guys! I've got it!! The way I type is the way I think!!!! Got the message?
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Penny,
If you rely on Einstein, time travel (into the future) "is" possible ( with one little snag ). As you approach the speed of light, say in a spacehip, time is actually compressed from the view point of an objective viewer on earth. It won't seem any different to you on the spaceship. But, when you arrive back home after, what for you seemed to be a two month trip, it would actually be two months and several days later back on earth. Not quite the leap that Hollywood wants. Now, here's the snag, as you approach the speed of light you also approach infinite mass ( E=Mc2 ) and you're squashed flatter than a pancake. Now, black holes or quantum singularities, have such immense gravitational fields light ain't fast enough to escape and thus all the interest in black holes as the means to achieve greater than light speed travel but that doesn't address the infinite mass problem. That's why real creative guys like Gene Roddenberry created "warp fields" to allow his space ships to travel up to ten times the speed of light without squashing poor old Captain Kirk. Hollywood aside,there are a number of reasonably intelligent, sane individuals who agree that it's more a matter of working out the problems than deciding if it's possible. Different folks are looking at different approaches. Everything from "quantum foam" to trans-dimensional travel. So far, nobody that I'm aware of has either disproven nor proven any particular approach. So it's "all" still open to theory and speculation. Thus, this forum.
Rick :-)
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

I'll give you a 80% of learning, thanks. Correction: "ain't" it was referred to some object in the past that was referring to me. Not my style.
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Let me throw something out for feedback. Let's say you're a passenger in a moving vehicle going 50 mph down the highway. Now, you flip the switch on your handy dandy pocket time machine to take you ten seconds into the past. "If" you move to a different moment in time from "that point" in space, you might rematerialize on the highway just in time to get run over by the car you were in. Well guess what, the whole planet is spinning and rotating around a medium sized yellow star at an incredible speed and yes, the whole galaxy is spinning and moving through space as well. I haven't heard any postulation that transitioning from one moment in time to another "also" means you automatically get transported to an appropriate corresponding point in space. Depending upon how far into the past "or" future you intend to travel, it makes sense to me that you better do it in some form of space ship. That being said, maybe we have been visited by time travelers and that is why, for obvious reasons, they haven't landed next to the west wing at 1600 Pensylvania Ave. Any thoughts?
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

I agree with you, but listen to this: I won't say the transporter would be a space ship, but on a local area on the surface where everyone is. Now one of the important steps for performance is "the control of rotation, more precisely is how the device calculates it with the probability of "vision" before getting materialized" Then it'll be possible for not to interact in a dangerous way. This is only my idea, and "how" could it be is another thing. Still with the wrong impression?
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

I've taken a deep analysis about the probability of "visitors". Listen to this: I'm taking the necessary steps of understanding by a weird style. I suggest we all forget about "visitors" that word means being uncertain, fear, and loose of confidence. Our present is the reality that only we can change it". But "forget" doesn't mean not existing, is more like concentrating on the matter. That will allow us for performance. And don't forget this: "Good and Bad together is the TRUTH". I just give impulse, YOU take the wheel. Got the message?
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Guys, you know when I read everything I'm typing all of it sounds like CRAZY isn't it? Don't worry I'm okay! Look if you want to test me, go ahead, have any ideas?
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Do you think I believe in all the site "someone" sent me. Also I know "this" was planned for a trap. Look guys I was serious before but NOW I'm kidding, and you better give up. I'm too powerful and in guard. Just trying to come out with ideas about time. Am I killing someone? If you want to end this I suggest you be like the way before.
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

The last question is interesting, I taugh of that too... What will append, travel in time-but what about the place...
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

It just occured to me that the only way this is going to work, will be to develop "transporter technology" first. Otherwise, you'll never overcome the infinite mass problem. If the human body is first converted to energy "then" mass is no longer an issue. As long as your time traveling device remains present ( which implies that "base travel" is limited to journeys into the future )your time traveling device serves as a temporal "conduit" from "and to" itself. Are you still with me? Then it doesn't matter where the time portal is located at any particular moment in space/time. I'm still working this out mentally. Any thoughts?
 
RE: Time travel in past doesn\'t sound relastic

Okay, so if you are a technician manning the "temporal transporter" ( my term )you may never live long enough to witness an initial "arrival". You see, a five minute trip into the future may be fine to determine whether or not the device "works" but to justify, what will most certainly be the enormous cost of a single round trip, I can't see a trip of less than a hundred years.

Here's where the fun starts. Though it will take a hundred years ( for every outside observer ) to see that first time traveler step out of the temporal transporter on his "maiden voyage", he may be able to make his return trip and arrive back 5 minutes after he left carrying the knowledge of 100 years of "future history" advanced technology etc. So in effect, he will return almost a century before he gets there. Just one of many temporal anomalies. Looking for feedback.
Rick :-)
 
Back
Top