LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Ye Olde Harbour (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=132)
-   -   time travelling.. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=105008)

Ray Jones 07-11-2003 02:32 PM

time travelling..
 
please let your mind just go and have a realistic model of timetraveling designed. does it go only forward? any other issues?

or give good reasons that make it impossible to travel in time.

Branik 07-11-2003 03:55 PM

The only way I could think of time travelling would be to somehow travel faster than light. That would reverse the progression of time according to the General Theory of Relativity ( what is that in english? I don't know, yleinen suhteellisuusteoria in finnish). The only problem is, that the same theory inhibits anything traveling with the same or a faster speed than light.

One possibility is a sort of a journey through black holes (singularities). Some experts believe that one might enter a parallel universe or time through them, but I doubt it.

Maybe we'll know a bit more of the subject when they finally manage to get the Unified Field Theory (again, shoddy english, yhtenäiskenttäteoria) working.

edlib 07-11-2003 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Branik
General Theory of Relativity

Unified Field Theory

Correct on both counts.

Das Mole 07-11-2003 10:25 PM

god, how i wish i could go back in the past and change the biggest mistake i ever made (which i'm not gonna discuss), but i don't really think that time travel could ever be made possible, especially travelling backwards in time, because there's no applicable reverse concept to really put there. possibly you could travel forward in time, but i seriously doubt whether it'd be interesting. i think that you could possibly cut through time (like with a wormhole or something), but that's a different topic. ;)

Branik 07-12-2003 05:22 AM

The closest thing I could think of in the means of time travelling would be to somehow travel at almost the speed of light. That way the progression of time slows significantly for the traveller, while it goes on normally for the others. For example 1 hour onboard the extremely fast vessel equals 100 years elsewhere. That way you could "travel" almost instantaneously to the future. But it wouldn't really be time travelling, since you don't actually go anywhere, but spend it really slowly. So yeah, it would only "work" forwards. Working backwards I ruled out earlier.

Cmdr. Cracken 07-12-2003 02:24 PM

going back in time would require me to mess with quantime theory and theoretical physics and stuff that i barely have a grasp on.

in other words, i doubt it could happen.

Now, going forward in time is highly implausible as well. First, as others have said, you have to accelerate FORWARD to teh SPEED of light, the point relative to everything else, where time stops. This would take INSURMAOUNTABLE and IMPOSSIBLY LARGE quantities of energy, unless you liek swinging around stars and such. that, and teh forces of acceleration would and could make you into a pancake in yourseat. which is BAD.

so, i doubt time travel is possible at all, since breaking physical laws of teh universe is bad, and usually the universe can right itself, usually destroying what casued the mistake in teh first place, usually through very violent means.

However, i have a theory. Since the speed of light is the point where time stops, maybe if you can accelerate past the speed of light, you could actually make time go in reverse, going backwards. maybe. think of a numberline type deal.

i dunno, maybe i'm just and idiot, which is more likely.

Branik 07-12-2003 03:38 PM

Your theory is correct Cracken, travelling faster than the speed of light would THEORETICALLY reverse the progress of time. Theoretically, because it has, for obvious reasons, never been tested.

The problem of the force glueing you to the seat could be solved by accelerating very slowly, but that would take immense amounts of time, fuel, oxygen etc.

Joshi 07-12-2003 04:09 PM

Here's something I heard once. A long time ago, the Government (i think english) found a young boy on the streets of India and found him to be a genius, a child prodegy, somerhinhg completely unexpected. They took him back to england, taught him fluent english in about a month, as well as advanced maths and physics and a load of other stuff. This boy worked with scientists for ages and became a week away from cracking Time travel. In that final week, the young boy died, apparently from lack of food.

Believe that or not, I don't have any proof of this, but it's something i heard, debate it while you can. the thing about it though, is that what they were doing was trying to send people back in time, to the past, and one theory suggest that they came close to it, but the thing was, they didn't know how to send them forward in time. Of course this means that they cold send you to yesterday, but you wouldn't be able to get back and would live the rest of your life a day behind everyone else.

In my opinion though, travelling back in time would be a pretty bad idea anyway. chaos theory suggests that it would infact be distastrous and probably destroy the universe (this is not being overdone, it would infact do this.)

Lets think of the basics os chaos thery first.

Quote:

Originally from the paper An Introduction to Mathematical Chaos Theory and Fractal Geometry
Before advancing into the more precocious and advanced areas of chaos, it is necessary to touch on the basic principle that adequately describes chaos theory, the Butterfly Effect. The Butterfly Effect was vaguely understood centuries ago and is still satisfactorily portrayed in folklore:

"For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of a horse, the rider was lost;
For want of a rider, a message was lost;
For want of a message the battle was lost;
For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost!"

Small variations in initial conditions result in huge, dynamic transformations in concluding events. That is to say that there was no nail, and, therefore, the kingdom was lost.

So if i were to go back in time and give them a nail, this would obviously result in a huge transformation and the kingdom would be saved. So one minute, an entire kingdom is gone and we live in the world we live in today. if that kingdom was saved, would we still even be here, would everything be the same, would anything be the same? I doubt it considerably, we would probably end up killing some distant ancestor, thus making it so we don't exist. but then if we don't exist, we didn't go back in time and do this, therefore we do exist, therefore we did go back in time... and considering the universe can't cope with this sort of paradox, it would most probably collapse.

Peace
Neil
;)

Branik 07-12-2003 04:16 PM

The universe ceasing existance would not actually happen, because time travelling is according to modern physics impossible. Even IF it were to happen, the apocalypse wouldn't be something noticeable. The logical errors that Neil pointed out would just simply make the universe disappear instantaneously.

Joshi 07-12-2003 04:28 PM

Well, i guess i did make it a little too dramatic, but that was basicaly what i was saying, the universe would simply cease to exist. But yes, it is true that time travel is quite impossible (and i'd never like to see it attempted if someone did find a way)

Reaper Girl 07-12-2003 04:46 PM

I will sum up the problems of time traveling in a qoute from Invader Zim...
(in this episode, Zim plans to send a robot back in time to destroy his "enemy", Dib. His assitant robot, GIR, comments on this...)

"Wait...if you send a robot back to destory dib, then he won't be your enemy. Then you wouldn't have to send a robot back and then he will be your enemy(sparks begin to fly from GIR's head).Then you WILL have to send a robot back and (head explodes)":D

Cmdr. Cracken 07-12-2003 05:37 PM

That's another problem, with going back into time, is paradox.

Example:

If you go back in time, and kill your grandfather, he'll never have your father, whom will never have you. what will happen to you? will you simply fade out of existance? or will your atoms, being non-existant, explode so violently that you take the planet with your? or will you continue to exist, being fatherless, and an anomoly in space/time?

Dangerous it seems, hard to see, it is. ^_^

This is the grandfather paradox, one of many seen in theorizing in time travel.

I myself am a fan of the alternate timeline theory. Say the timeline is a single, large line. anywhere along the line, the time continuum can abruptly move, and chose another path. Therefore, it is theorized that if you go back and change the past, the time whiuch you return to will not be the original main line, however, a split in the road. (Think back to the future part II, the middle/end)

More likely than the universe destroying itself, personally, because to destroy the universe take a mass amount of energy. and the universe is somewhat lazy. ^_^

Ray Jones 07-12-2003 07:19 PM

avoid paradoxons..
 
i see time as just the forthcoming of happenings .. and therefore cannot jumped on in any kind. i think one concern of it is that you have to find a way go throug time without having your own time being affected.

if it can be reversed by driving faster than light..? i think this is another point .. but the question is what will really happen at lightspeed.. perhabs we will know someday..

maybe time is some part of space.. and by moving through space we kind of glide on time (like a wing on air) perhabs it has something to do with the mass or gravity .. (gravynamics??) .. perhabs it is possible to build some device that enables us to surf on time..
then we could travel through space without lack of time..

would overlightspeed be possible then? and if.. goes time backwards then? will time stand still? or is there something like a time-sonicbarrier? then i must correct myself.. we would be faster then time.. but is time so directly coupled to lightspeed?? ..

..some way to go, eh?


(remarks: i'm living too far in the past.. ;) )

Joshi 07-12-2003 08:16 PM

Re: avoid paradoxons..
 
Quote:

Originally posted by RayJones
perhabs it has something to do with the mass or gravity .. (gravynamics??)
Gravynamics... the dynamic study on gravy?:confused:

[quote]Originally posted by RayJones
would overlightspeed be possible then? and if.. goes time backwards then? will time stand still? or is there something like a time-sonicbarrier? then i must correct myself.. we would be faster then time.. but is time so directly coupled to lightspeed?? ..

You can't exactly be faster than time, time isn't something that takes time. A second takes time, an hour takes time. I suppose you would have to be faster than the present in order to travel in time (although i'm a little hazy on exactly which way, but i think it may be backwards). If you have no idea what I just said then, consider the present as being the smallest unit of time in the world, and that is actually quite plausible considering the beginning of the present is the past, and the end of it is the future, it bridges the two and considering we live in the past (everything we think about and encounter has already happened) and look to the future, the present must be a very small amount of time indeed.
So if we were to move faster than this, then we would be travelling in time. the whole idea of time travel beyond the sped of light is ludicrous. It's not true, it would simply be an optical illusion. Because we can't see faster than the speed of light, if we were to move faster than it, when we stopped, we would see something that had already happened, sort of like a delayed response. we would basically live in the past as we would have to live a few seconds (or how ever Mps faster you were than light speed) in teh past, which would seriously mess you up as your body would still be in the present and your mind would be in the past giving ypou a complete delayed reaction to things.

Ray Jones 07-12-2003 08:33 PM

Revisited: avoid paradoxons..
 
Quote:

Originally posted by RayJones

maybe time is some part of space.. and by moving through space we kind of glide on time (like a wing on air) perhabs it has something to do with the mass or gravity .. (gravynamics??) .. perhabs it is possible to build some device that enables us to surf on time..
then we could travel through space without lack of time..

would overlightspeed be possible then? and if.. goes time backwards then? will time stand still? or is there something like a time-sonicbarrier? then i must correct myself.. we would be faster then time.. but is time so directly coupled to lightspeed?? ..

it must be like we surf on gravity and a gravity-sonic wall. as gravity influences time. and we wouldnt be faster then time .. but moving with some kind of less time usage or so.. like the effect a plane at supersonicspeed has on a person on the ground which hears it..

plus because time is taken to measure speed time itself cannot have a specific speed.

Joshi 07-12-2003 08:45 PM

Gravity does not effect time in any way. Time is not slower on the moon, if you were to throw a ball on the moon horizontally, it would probably go at a faster speed than on earth because of a lack of air, and therefore less air resistance, and take longer to hit the ground because of low gravity. thus doing the same thing on Jupiter would have the same effect (I'm not sure about air there) but would hit the ground a lot sooner. Time has nothing to do with it though, and gravity does not change our view on time either.

Time is a measurement, we canot touch it or surf on it in the same way that we cannot surf on a metre, it would have to be a metre of something and again, would have to be a second of something. Time simply cannot be manipulated in that way, we may be able to in the future, make our minds work faster than they work now, maybe condition our eyes to see more than 24 movements per second and have our brain register it all properly. that would be out manipulation of time, but time itself cannot slow down, speed up, or go backwards, it is a continuing... thing, and therefore cannot be manipulated 9and i am aware i used that word a lot just then, but it's 10:30 at night, I've got to work tomorrow, I'm tired, and I want some cake, so I really can't be bothered to think up a new word)

Goodnight.

RoyTordesLegend 06-17-2004 08:33 PM

BUT, didn't they do a study where astronauts orbitting the earth(or moon - I can't remember), were found to age 0.000001 % of a second (or something) slower than us down here, thus were actually travelling forwards in time?

(Sorry guys, I just don't feel that we discussed this subject enough last time round)!!

Joshi 06-18-2004 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoyTordesLegend
BUT, didn't they do a study where astronauts orbitting the earth(or moon - I can't remember), were found to age 0.000001 % of a second (or something) slower than us down here, thus were actually travelling forwards in time?

Do we not travel forward in time contantly. All your saying is that they aged slower than us. That doesn't mean that for them time went any faster, they probably still perceived everything as normal Even if it was just a very tiny percentage things were still seen in the same way because age has nothing to do with function and those astronauts still have their birthday at the exact same time.

Therefore thye didn't travel in time.

edlib 06-19-2004 11:03 AM

That's merely a side effect of relativity. The astronauts were travelling at speeds faster than anyone on the surface of the earth could ever do, so time slowed down very slightly for them relative to those of us standing on the planet.
If we could sense such changes in relative time movement they would have perceived that time was moving normally for them, but slowly for us.
We would have detected the same change in them. Also: if we could measure the capsule that they were in as it was travelling then we would have noticed that it was a tiny bit shorter than when it was resting on the ground.

simian 06-19-2004 11:08 AM

Ohhh my head hurts now.

edlib 06-19-2004 11:11 AM

Actually, I find Einsteinian Relativity theories to be amazingly easy to understand compared to Quantum Mechanics and string theory. Those are hard!
:D

Ray Jones 06-19-2004 11:45 AM

anything is easy to understand related to any of zooms random anti-theories.

:D

(sorry roy, have to think up a proper thought first .. errmm ... ;))

Natty 06-19-2004 12:21 PM

My time machine looks like this :)

http://www.chesco.com/%7Esilknitt/probert/dmc1.jpg

Kjølen 06-19-2004 03:32 PM

I don't believe in time travel. I believe if you go faster than the speed of light.... well, you're going really really fast. I don't know how they came to the conclusion that light had anything to do with time but....

I don't believe in time either. Sure I believe in time time, but not that time is something you can travel through. Time just passes by, things happen, and it's in the past. Meaning it is gone. Time is the present and you can't go anywhere else.

RoyTordesLegend 06-19-2004 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Natty
My time machine looks like this :)

http://www.chesco.com/%7Esilknitt/probert/dmc1.jpg

....and I drive a car that looks like this:-
http://cemetery.homeunix.org/scirocco/images/back.jpg
A VW Scirocco - which looks like a kind of baby DeLorean

Alien426 06-19-2004 08:04 PM

This is my time machine:
http://www.colemanzone.com/images/AUCTION.JPG
Now that I've seen Natty's I want one of those, too. Sure mine works fine, but that one looks so much better.

Sgt. Pepper 06-19-2004 10:41 PM

Has anyone heared of the "M" theory? It says theres 11 dimentions instead of 3. They talk about Membranes and strings its pretty deep stuff. It proves some interesting things. you guys might want to read this http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

roytordes'babe 06-20-2004 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoyTordesLegend
....and I drive a car that looks like this:-
http://cemetery.homeunix.org/scirocco/images/back.jpg
A VW Scirocco - which looks like a kind of baby DeLorean

this car is my second baby but of course my babe roy comes first on the list, isn't that right darling.

edlib 06-20-2004 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kjølen
I don't know how they came to the conclusion that light had anything to do with time but....
The fabric of the universe is called "Space-Time." They are one component, inseperable. Every movement you make in space effects time, and vice-versa.
Time is the 4th dimension. Every measurement of velocity we have has a time component. A 'light-year' or 'light-second' is a measurement of distance,.. but it is meaningless without the time component, how far light can travel in that amount of time.
But more importantly here's how it works with relativity:
Every particle in the universe can move freely in 3 spatial dimensions, and forward in one temporal dimension. However, since nothing can move faster than the speed of light, then the combined total of a particle's movement in the 4 dimensions of the universe must total the speed of light.
If we use X, Y, and Z to represent the movement in space, T to represent movement in time, and C to represent the speed of light, you can get an algebraic looking formula like this:

X+Y+Z+T=C

If X, Y, and Z are all zero, then your movement in time has to be taking place at the speed of light (0+0+0+T=C.) However, if you get into a rocket and travel at forward at half the speed of light, (.5C+0+0+T=C) the other half has to come from somewhere... and it will be from the T part of the formula (.5C+0+0+.5C=C). Your speed moving forward in time will slow down to an outside observer who is at rest.
This is one of the other reasons why light=speed travel is impossible: If we could design a craft that could achieve light-velocity then T would equal zero, and time would stop completely for anyone inside of it.

In theory this allows you to do some fun things with time: If you open a wormhole in space with one end onboard a ship moving away from the other end at close to the speed of light, meaning that time has moved slower for the second end of the wormhole than the stationary one... it is younger. The practical use of this is if you step into the stationary end of the wormhole, you will emerge from the moving end at a time before you entered. Unfortunately, this has the limitation of not going back to a time before the wornhole was created.

Kjølen 06-20-2004 11:08 PM

I have no idea what you were talking about. Oh well, we only KNOW of nothing that travels faster than light, why, in other places beyond our reach thee could be elements and energies and maybe undiscovered things that would make no sense to modern science. We can't know everything looking from this rock.

Anyway, another thing that proves time travel should be impossible, is going back in time and killing yourself, or making yourself not exist. If you don't exist, you wouldn't have killed yourself. So you couldn't go back in time to kill yourself... so you DO exist. So you DO kill yourself. THen that leaves the problem that you didn't exist to kill yourself. Another reason why I believe time travel is impossible. :p

Joshi 06-24-2004 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Natty
My time machine looks like this :)

http://www.chesco.com/%7Esilknitt/probert/dmc1.jpg

Hey cool, a classic DeLorian Time Traveller. I remember those from like the 80's

yeah, I got me a DeLorian 2000, 2 years old... or actually, thirty years old, or... Hang on, when the hell am I?

Oh, and string theory is hard to understand because people have a hard time thinking in 11 dimensions (actually, most people have a hard time thinking in 4)

And K-jo has a point, time is just a measurement. can anyone here travel faster than a centimeter? Does anyone know how fast a centimeter travels. Does anyone know how to spell centimeter? (is it er, or re at the end?)

Ray Jones 06-28-2004 06:47 PM

if time is used to measure speed how can it have a speed itself? it cannot.

so if you have two different time systems one is moving fast and one stands still time keeps going on normal within both. looked from one system at the other the own system seems to be not moving and the time in the other time seems to slow down. that's relativity.

but seen from a "central point of no motion" with a fast moving "traveler" and a slow moving obsever, then, if someone travels really fast, his time would be going as fast as the time anyone else. but for the observer his time seems to go slower and it is observed so.. if the traveler "stops", his time would be not as "far" as the time of the observer.

i think the key to that is gravity. analoque to electric fields of electrons mass has a gravity field. moved electric fields cause magnetic fields. and moved gavity fields are causing "deformation" of space (space-time). that influences time or it's speed for an "outside" observer. the time within the deformed space is running normal.

and if time is the "4th dimension", then is must be possible to "travel" within this "4th axis" of our universes dimensions.

if it is a dimension in the classical way. but is it?

edlib 06-29-2004 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RayJones
i think the key to that is gravity. analoque to electric fields of electrons mass has a gravity field. moved electric fields cause magnetic fields. and moved gavity fields are causing "deformation" of space (space-time). that influences time or it's speed for an "outside" observer. the time within the deformed space is running normal.
If that were true then wouldn't we be encountering strange gravity fields from the billions of light-speed cosmic particles that shower down upon us every second of every day. Although they are tiny, they do have some mass, and if gravity and speed are inter-related, then there should be detectable gravity fields.

Time does have a speed. Even if we are standing still in space we are still moving forward at a measurable rate,.. in time. Just because we cannot choose in what direction or at what rate we move through this dimension doesn't make it any less important. Time moves exactly the same for all of us because we are all moving around together, living at the bottom of the same gravity well. That might not be able to be said if half the folks that posted to this board were merely drifting in interstellar space.
I guess it is considered a dimension because if I were to give you instructions for being at a meeting I would have to give you 4 pieces of information to truly make it complete. If I said to "Meet me at the building at the corner of Sixth Avenue..." that doesn't tell you enough. Sixth Ave. runs the entire length of the city. It has a lot of corners. "... and Liberty Street..." Closer,.. but that building has 20 floors. "... on the 11th floor...", Pretty good, but not entirely complete, is it? If I left it at that then you would no doubt ask me for the 4th piece of vital information to make this useable: "When?" ("Friday at 2:30PM.")

Joshi 06-29-2004 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by edlib
If that were true then wouldn't we be encountering strange gravity fields from the billions of light-speed cosmic particles that shower down upon us every second of every day. Although they are tiny, they do have some mass, and if gravity and speed are inter-related, then there should be detectable gravity fields.

Time does have a speed. Even if we are standing still in space we are still moving forward at a measurable rate,.. in time. Just because we cannot choose in what direction or at what rate we move through this dimension doesn't make it any less important. Time moves exactly the same for all of us because we are all moving around together, living at the bottom of the same gravity well. That might not be able to be said if half the folks that posted to this board were merely drifting in interstellar space.
I guess it is considered a dimension because if I were to give you instructions for being at a meeting I would have to give you 4 pieces of information to truly make it complete. If I said to "Meet me at the building at the corner of Sixth Avenue..." that doesn't tell you enough. Sixth Ave. runs the entire length of the city. It has a lot of corners. "... and Liberty Street..." Closer,.. but that building has 20 floors. "... on the 11th floor...", Pretty good, but not entirely complete, is it? If I left it at that then you would no doubt ask me for the 4th piece of vital information to make this useable: "When?" ("Friday at 2:30PM.")

Okay, first of all, another reason why I think Star Trek is useless.

And Time can't have a measurement, it is a measurement. Legnth can't have a measurement for the same reason. If it did have a mearurement, it would have to be in respect to seconds and minutes. For that to happen we would need to find out the exact time it takes for the past to merge into the future. this is instantaneous, no time is taken, time is nothing, and yet time is everything, which just goers to show how nothing is everything.



0=infinity

Joshi 06-29-2004 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by edlib
If that were true then wouldn't we be encountering strange gravity fields from the billions of light-speed cosmic particles that shower down upon us every second of every day. Although they are tiny, they do have some mass, and if gravity and speed are inter-related, then there should be detectable gravity fields.

Time does have a speed. Even if we are standing still in space we are still moving forward at a measurable rate,.. in time. Just because we cannot choose in what direction or at what rate we move through this dimension doesn't make it any less important. Time moves exactly the same for all of us because we are all moving around together, living at the bottom of the same gravity well. That might not be able to be said if half the folks that posted to this board were merely drifting in interstellar space.
I guess it is considered a dimension because if I were to give you instructions for being at a meeting I would have to give you 4 pieces of information to truly make it complete. If I said to "Meet me at the building at the corner of Sixth Avenue..." that doesn't tell you enough. Sixth Ave. runs the entire length of the city. It has a lot of corners. "... and Liberty Street..." Closer,.. but that building has 20 floors. "... on the 11th floor...", Pretty good, but not entirely complete, is it? If I left it at that then you would no doubt ask me for the 4th piece of vital information to make this useable: "When?" ("Friday at 2:30PM.")

Okay, first of all, another reason why I think Star Trek is useless.

But iot is notable to add that you do havea very good point. in that meeting, you specified all four dimensions for it to work, Sixth avenue, the x axis, Liberty street, the z axis, and the 11th floor, the y axis. and then the time itself, the fourth dimension. Of course this is all true if you are to agree on what the three axis are meant to look like as appose to some peoples twisted thinking that the z axis should be going up, which just confuses a lot of people.

And Time can't have a measurement, it is a measurement. Legnth can't have a measurement for the same reason. If it did have a mearurement, it would have to be in respect to seconds and minutes. For that to happen we would need to find out the exact time it takes for the past to merge into the future. this is instantaneous, no time is taken, time is nothing, and yet time is everything, which just goers to show how nothing is everything.



0=infinity

JofaGuht 06-29-2004 06:29 PM

Re: time travelling..
 
Quote:

Originally posted by RayJones
please let your mind just go and have a realistic model of timetraveling designed. does it go only forward? any other issues?

or give good reasons that make it impossible to travel in time.

Time does not exist. It is a human concept. Therefore it is impossible to manipulate.

Ray Jones 06-29-2004 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by edlib
If that were true then wouldn't we be encountering strange gravity fields from the billions of light-speed cosmic particles that shower down upon us every second of every day. Although they are tiny, they do have some mass, and if gravity and speed are inter-related, then there should be detectable gravity fields.
maybe the gravity fields are not that strong. also i dont know how much space is deformed by gravity.
quantum theory may kick in too if we talk about small (micro-)cosmic particles.

and like joshi i see a valid point in what you've said. but i hav to agree with joshi that time is only measurement. i dont think it has a speed in the classic sense.

jofa: time is not a human concept. it was there before us. but unlike joshi i would say it belongs to everything. but on the other hand it does not (quanta(??) seem to be able to correlate without time (not in NO time)) so it belongs only to nearly everything and shows that infinity is not infinite.

ha!

Joshi 06-30-2004 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RayJones
jofa: time is not a human concept. it was there before us. but unlike joshi i would say it belongs to everything. but on the other hand it does not (quanta(??) seem to be able to correlate without time (not in NO time)) so it belongs only to nearly everything and shows that infinity is not infinite.

ha!

Either at some point you made a mistake in this paragraph (spelling or otherwise) which made it say something other to what you meant, or I just don't get it, but either way, not once did I say time belongs to nothing. Being a measurement, and having everything existing in this universe, I can't see anyting that isn't in some way moving through time, therefore time must be infinate. If theory states that teh end of the universe will come and then there will be nothing, will time just stop? For there to be time, there must be matter, so if there is no matter, there is no concept of time. But, if then, matter was to come into being, how long after the universe was destroyed does this happen, there must be a time, unless it is instantaneous, and therefore time must be infinate. And yet the time between the past and the future is nothing of anything, anf therefore infinity is nothing.

ha hah!

SamNMax 06-30-2004 06:25 PM

This time machine worked for me.

Joshi 06-30-2004 06:41 PM

Doubt it, the flux capacitor's binary data is way off and it doesn't have enough mega fluxes to open a time rip. You really need a PS2 for it to work properly.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.