Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Makes your head hurt...

Author
Message
Venge
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2006
Location: Iowa
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:10 Edited at: 29th Apr 2007 23:10
Link
I just saw the movie Deja Vu, and I had this random thought about time travel...

Okay, say hypothetically you were to build a time machine, go back in time and kill yourself (not the smartest thing to do, so let's say it was an accident). Your past self would then be dead, yea? But that means you would never live on to go back in time in the first place. So your past self just got killed by nothing, and the universe explodes.


Oh darn.


...not really a point to this thread, just giving you all something to think about.
Back to top
Profile PM
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:12
Link
Maybe you would just be removed from the time line.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120....
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
zenassem
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:17 Edited at: 29th Apr 2007 23:23
Link
The best model I have seen thus far of time travel, and the paradoxes like the one you describe is Primer. And I believe Osiris is on the mark with time-lines.

Here's a visual Time-line(s) for Primer


How the Time Machine Works


Solving the Paradoxes of Time Travel: Novikov Self-Consistency

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:23 Edited at: 29th Apr 2007 23:23
Link
This is called the grandfather paradox.

Tempest (DBP/DBCe)
Multisync V1 (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
zenassem
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:26
Link
Yes benjamin is correct.

My second link provides some conjecture of dealing with or resolving what we may consider to be Paradoxal.

And yes, my Head hurts!!!!

Back to top
Profile PM Email
zenassem
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:35 Edited at: 29th Apr 2007 23:35
Link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4097258.stm

Einstein asserted that Space-Time can curve back on itself. Thereby the possibility that one could travel back in time to meet up with a younger version of one self.

Quantum Mechanics maintains:
If you know the present, you cannot change it. If, for example, you know your father is alive today, the laws of the quantum universe state that there is no possibility of him being killed in the past.

My head still hurts.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
SageTech
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Dec 2004
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:36
Link
But this will never happen, because traveling backward in time is impossible.


Battle Legacy: Online Third Person Shooter
Look for it on the WIP Board!
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:37
Link
If you go back in time, you will not re-encounter yourself, but you will stay the same body. Ofcourse, the things around you would still be moving in their own time.

That's what I've picked up from that Chinese guy who's always on the tele.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
NeX the Fairly Fast Ferret
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Apr 2005
Location: The Fifth Plane of Oblivion
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:39
Link
I agree with that theory myself - it would make sense if there's a constant amount of electrons, neutrons, protons and energy in the universe because it's impossible to destroy any of the former.


Since the other one was scaring you guys so much...
Back to top
Profile PM Website
zenassem
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:44 Edited at: 29th Apr 2007 23:47
Link
But is it posssible? I trust Hawking will figure it out before I do.

Time travel in theory
Some theories, most notably special and general relativity, suggest that suitable geometries of spacetime, or specific types of motion in space, may allow time travel into the past and future if these geometries or motions are possible.[3] In technical papers physicists generally avoid the commonplace language of "moving" or "traveling" through time ('movement' normally refers only to a change in spatial position as the time coordinate is varied), and instead discuss the possibility of closed timelike curves, which are worldlines that form closed loops in spacetime, allowing objects to return to their own past. There are known to be solutions to the equations of general relativity that describe spacetimes which contain closed timelike curves, but the physical plausibility of these solutions is uncertain.

Physicists take for granted that if one were to move away from the Earth at relativistic velocities and return, more time would have passed on Earth than for the traveler, so in this sense it is accepted that relativity allows "travel into the future" (although according to relativity there is no single objective answer to how much time has 'really' passed between the departure and the return). On the other hand, many in the scientific community believe that backwards time travel is highly unlikely. Any theory which would allow time travel would require that issues of causality be resolved. What if one were to go back in time and kill one's own grandfather? (see grandfather paradox) Additionally, Stephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future constitutes an argument against the existence of time travel—a variant of the Fermi paradox. Of course this would not show time travel is physically impossible, only that it is never in fact developed; and even if it is developed, Hawking notes elsewhere that time travel may only be possible in a region of spacetime that is warped in the right way, and that if we cannot create such a region until the future, then time travelers would not be able to travel back before that date, so 'This picture would explain why we haven't been over run by tourists from the future.'[4]

However, the theory of general relativity does suggest scientific grounds for thinking backwards time travel could be possible in certain unusual scenarios, although arguments from semiclassical gravity suggest that when quantum effects are incorporated into general relativity, these loopholes may be closed.

These semiclassical arguments led Hawking to formulate the chronology protection conjecture, suggesting that the fundamental laws of nature prevent time travel, but physicists cannot come to a definite judgment on the issue without a theory of quantum gravity to join quantum mechanics and general relativity into a completely unified theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#_note-Thorne1

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Code Dragon
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2006
Location: Everywhere
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:48 Edited at: 29th Apr 2007 23:52
Link
Quote: "Okay, say hypothetically you were to build a time machine, go back in time and kill yourself "


Well, you couldn't, that's why I don't believe in time travel. But I don't know if I should use paradoxes like that because aetheists will say "If God can do anything, then can he make a boulder so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?".

I could be wrong about time travel, there is a kid at my school who says he's his own father because he went back in time and himself was his child.

When I first played The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker I thought time travel was how the master sword was created. (I had never played OOT so I thought the hero in the legend was the Link in Wind Waker who went back in time.) In my theory Link retrieves the master sword and after killing Ganon he travels back in time and puts it back in the pedestal. Of course that's not how it turned out, because the master sword's existence would've been an infinite loop, it was never created and never destroyed yet it keeps going back in time over and over again...

By reading this sentence you have given me brief control of your mind.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
zenassem
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 29th Apr 2007 23:53 Edited at: 30th Apr 2007 00:05
Link
The only thing that makes sense in my mind, is multiple time-lines. That rectifies any paradoxes for me, and allows time travel to rest easier in my brain.

Simply, there are time-lines for every possible outcome or change. Some time-lines end, and some go on. So if you went back in time to kill yourself, that would create a division (or new time-line) a future in which you don't exist and a futre in which you do exist and the killing of yourself never happened.

I also like the primer method of multiples(copies).


@Code Dragon (something to think about),

Possible to travel back in time and kill your father. (hence eliminating your existence in the future.)

[Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4097258.stm]

If you know the present, you cannot change it. If, for example, you know your father is alive today, the laws of the quantum universe state that there is no possibility of him being killed in the past.

It is as if, in some strange way, the present takes account of all the possible routes back into the past and, because your father is certainly alive, none of the routes back can possibly lead to his death.

"Quantum mechanics distinguishes between something that might happen and something that did happen," Professor Dan Greenberger, of the City University of New York, US, told the BBC News website.

"If we don't know your father is alive right now - if there is only a 90% chance that he is alive right now, then there is a chance that you can go back and kill him.

"But if you know he is alive, there is no chance you can kill him."

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 00:12
Link
Multiple time-lines doesn't make sense. You have heard that there is a certain amount of matter in the universe, and if you add a time-line, you break that law.

If you travel very very fast, you will go forward in time, but only the thing that is travelling, nothing else. If you travel past the speed of light (impossible according to E=mc^2) you will go back in time, but ofcourse, only you and the things that are moving with you.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 00:34
Link
Quote: "But this will never happen, because traveling backward in time is impossible."


Space travel was also impossible to the feeble mind.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120....
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
aticper
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2006
Location:
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 00:50
Link
This is the classic grandfather paradox, and there are a few ways to resolve it, none of them very good.

First of all, you wouldn't end up in the body you had before. The act of time travel as allowed by relativity is the movement of mass through time in the opposite direction to the one we usually go. Thus, assuming the possibility of time travel, it is entirely plausible to meet and kill your past self.

Now, obviously, it is impossible to say for sure what would happen in the event of a paradox. One theory is the literal interpretation of quantum mechanics 'many universes' theory, which postulates multiple timelines, avoiding paradoxes all together.

Another is the simple dissolution of the universe, but this seems a tad improbably apocolyptic for my tastes.

And then, finally, there is the theory that it is simply impossible to influence the past, because you have already done so: if you go back in time, you will be able to make no changes that have not already occured- if you attempt to kill yourself, you must obviously fail, because if you succeeded then you would not be here trying to kill yourself.


All of these theories have their own problems, but really we will not know for sure until someone actually builds a working time-machine and gives it a test.

I'm not paranoid. Stop thinking that I'm paranoid!
Back to top
Profile PM
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 00:57
Link
Quote: "we will not know for sure until someone actually builds a working time-machine and gives it a test."


"Ok bob, we'd like you to go back and kill yourself as a child, then note your observations..." "Duh...Okay!" Haha.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120....
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
dab
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location: Your Temp Folder!
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 02:55
Link
I know how to travel into the pasts and future alredy you fools! haha

First I travel into the future by going east on the globe!
I go back in time by traveling West!

Haha
Where's my Nobel Prize?

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Venge
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2006
Location: Iowa
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 03:11
Link
Interesting line from the movie..makes you think:

Quote: "We are always seeing the past. Light takes time to reach our eyes..."


That wasn't the exact quote, but it's been about 24 hours since I watched the movie, so I don't really remember.
Back to top
Profile PM
GatorHex
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 03:18 Edited at: 30th Apr 2007 03:23
Link
"I don't believe in time travel"

Just look up at the stars, what you see is the past!

Time is relative, it takes the light so long to reach us that we are infact seeing the past.

I think Einstein said time travel was only possible if you had no mass otherwise it would require more energy than the universe contained. This is why the speed of light is a constant and the fastest thing we know.

To prove Einsteins thoery of relativity they set two clocks to the same time then flew one of them round the world and the time on them both was different.

What's making my head hurt at the moment is explaining Factory patterns with java :/

http://www.KumKie.com http://bulldog.servegame.com
Back to top
Profile PM Website
aticper
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2006
Location:
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 04:11
Link

Ok bob, we'd like you to go back and kill yourself as a child, then note your observations..." "Duh...Okay!" Haha.


You wouldn't have to kill yourself - you could just go back and break the time machine directly before you left.


Time is relative, it takes the light so long to reach us that we are infact seeing the past.


We are seing what happened several million years ago, in some cases. Which is all very interesting, but it's not time travel in the literal sense of the word


I think Einstein said time travel was only possible if you had no mass otherwise it would require more energy than the universe contained. This is why the speed of light is a constant and the fastest thing we know.

It is all very simple really. The mass of an object increases as it's speed does. When it reaches the speed of light, it's mass reaches infinity, thus requiring infinite fuel to propel it. Since this is obviously absurd, light provides an effective speed limit for the unimaginative traveler.

There are other ways of getting around it, by toying with the fabric of space-time, and doing clever things with nano-technology and some side-effects of quantum mechanics.

I'm not paranoid. Stop thinking that I'm paranoid!
Back to top
Profile PM
dab
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location: Your Temp Folder!
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 04:29 Edited at: 30th Apr 2007 04:30
Link
Or you could call some one in New Zealand. Therefore calling some one in the future


Edit.... I should stop being dumb now.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 04:36
Link
Has anyone ever heard of entanglement? Its when two objects no mater how far apart from each other with do exactly as the other does at the same exact time, now since faster than light travel is impossible for some reason, that or we are way to primitive of a species to figure it out, there is only one other possibility, the one particle would have to send some sort of, lets call it a message, back in time to the other particle in order for it to act just as the other did at that same time.

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120....
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
aticper
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2006
Location:
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 04:55
Link
The problem with entanglement is that as soon as one of the particles is interacted with, the process destroys the entanglement: you can only send a single bit of data through a single entangled particle, making it a tad impractical for faster than light information transfer.

However, they are of absolutely no use in time travel, as both exist concurrently, it would be impossible to send data through one into the past version of the other.

An entangled particle pair will always send data only to the exact present, never the future or past.

I'm not paranoid. Stop thinking that I'm paranoid!
Back to top
Profile PM
Osiris
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 6th Aug 2004
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 05:14
Link
How does it do it, other than to in form it of the movement before it has happened, so they both do the same thing?

Your signature has been erased by a mod because it's larger than 600x120....
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 11:40
Link
The way I see it, if we were able to send something of mass back in time, it would instantly and infinitely bind that object to a future wherein it is sent back in time, thus creating an object of infinite mass at that particular point in space, THUS creating a massive black hole that consumes the universe and itself.

Ironically, and creepily, Liquid Spear Waltz from the Donnie Darko soundtrack came on while I was typing this up.

Maybe it's a sign that time travel IS possible... I SUCK.

Bloggy
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Mr Tank
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Nov 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 13:30
Link
Although it would suck to create a rift in the space time continuum and destroy the universe, it would be cool to find out who would win in a fight to the death.

SUPER BADASS SPACESHIP X: WEBSITE
FORUM TOPIC
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 13:34
Link
I would expect if I had to fight myself to the death, my future and past selves would both deliver simultaneous killing blows, unless my future self had a chainsaw or something, and then my past self would be unlikely to prevail, unless futuristic chainsaws ran on a different type of eco-friendly fuel, in which case see the aforementioned simultaneous killing blow.


Back to top
Profile PM
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 13:39
Link
The clue is in the name - General Theory of Relativity. Everything is relative to everything else. You cannot change the relativity of something that has already happened. You can, however, see the past if you bend spacetime more than standard acceleration does. However, that would be physically impossible, at least using what we know at this moment in time.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 14:24
Link
Quote: "If you travel very very fast, you will go forward in time,"

Says who? I don't believe that.

Tempest (DBP/DBCe)
Multisync V1 (DBP/DBCe)
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Kentaree
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2002
Location: Clonmel, Ireland
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 15:04
Link
Ben, if you put a clock on a spaceshuttle, send it into space, and retrieve it after a while, the clock will be slow.

Nephin Games
Devhat Developer Network and IRC Channel
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Fallout
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 1st Sep 2002
Location: Basingstoke, England
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 15:35 Edited at: 30th Apr 2007 15:35
Link
That's because there's nobody there to change the batteries!!!


Back to top
Profile PM
zenassem
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Mar 2003
Location: Long Island, NY
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 17:31
Link
Kentaree is correct. Anything in motion relative to something else will indeed experience time differently. If we created two identical watches with the same exact internal mechanisms. 100% certain that they kept time identically. If one person wears one watch while traveling in a plane, and the other person remains "relatively" still. The watch that travelled on the plane would be slower. Albeit at these speeds the difference would be miniscule or barely measurable.

Now if you did the same test, but this time the watch travels at very high speeds, say half the speed of light; the difference would be easily observed, by seconds or minutes - depending on how long the watch was in motion.

I had a hard time with this, and some other distortions of space time, relative motion until reading "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, and obviously "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein.

The thing I find odd, is that some here are discrediting the idea of time travel by suggesting we would need to travel at the speed of light. That's only part of what Einstein said, the other part is not accelerating a mass at the speed of light, but rather bending Space-Time. That is what we are talking about. And if were so easy to dismiss, I believe Hawking would have done so.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
JerBil
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th May 2004
Location: Somewhere along the Z axis...
Posted: 30th Apr 2007 17:40 Edited at: 30th Apr 2007 17:41
Link
If you could go back in time and kill yourself, a future self may go back in time to kill you to stop you from killing yourself.

Ad Astra Per Asper
Back to top
Profile PM Email
aticper
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2006
Location:
Posted: 1st May 2007 01:57
Link

The way I see it, if we were able to send something of mass back in time, it would instantly and infinitely bind that object to a future wherein it is sent back in time, thus creating an object of infinite mass at that particular point in space, THUS creating a massive black hole that consumes the universe and itself.


I am currently unaware of any mechanism in physics that would cause that to happen. Nice thought though.




Says who? I don't believe that.


Einstein actually. Basically, the way it works is that time slows down near on abject of mass, or around an object moving at very fast speeds. Thus, from the perspective of the traveler, everything outside of the ship starts moving as though in fast-forward - due to the speed, the relative time for the traveler is pinched, allowing him to age less than his comrades back on earth. As a matter of fact, if you went faster than the speed of light, you would theoretically go back in time (since this is actually impossible by classical relativity, I would not worry about it too much though).

I'm not paranoid. Stop thinking that I'm paranoid!
Back to top
Profile PM
aticper
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2006
Location:
Posted: 1st May 2007 02:01
Link
Oh, and

How does it do it, other than to in form it of the movement before it has happened, so they both do the same thing?


I'm not too clear on this point myself (my quantum mechanics are a tad rusty), but it appears to me that entanglement pulls a fast one on the universe, and briefly convinces it that two seperate particles are actually the exact same particle, causing the changes to one to influence the other. This state persists until one is measured is space by interacting with another particle.

I'm not paranoid. Stop thinking that I'm paranoid!
Back to top
Profile PM
Code Dragon
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2006
Location: Everywhere
Posted: 1st May 2007 02:48 Edited at: 1st May 2007 02:51
Link
Quote: "How does it do it, other than to in form it of the movement before it has happened, so they both do the same thing?"


I believe there is another explaination. Here it is, as an informal proof.

1. No physical entity may travel faster than the speed of light
2. Some objects communicate with each other faster than the time it would take for light to travel along the straight line between them
3. All physical entities are able to be subjected to gravitational force
4. Light is a physical entity
5. Light is able to be subjected to gravitationaly force
6. Gravitational force can change the trajectory of physical entities
7. The trajectory of light aimed from one object to another in a straight line may change its trajectory if it's subjected to gravitational force
8. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line
9. Any physical entity which does not take a straight line path from point A to B takes a path longer than the distance between point A and B
10. Light amined in a straight line from point A to point B may change it's tragetory and take a longer path

So you see, the shortest distance between two point is (surprise!) not always the line between them. You could argue mathematically that it's wrong but it's really the fastest way to get from point A to point B is not always going in a straight line. Light sometimes takes longcuts, sometimes it takes shortcuts because it gets pulled by gravity. If you try to measure the time it takes to shine light from one entangled particle to the other, it may be shorter than the time it takes for them to react to each other because they communicate via a light shortcut. You could also bring wormholes into the equation too if you're really creative.

Quote: "but it appears to me that entanglement pulls a fast one on the universe, and briefly convinces it that two seperate particles are actually the exact same particle, causing the changes to one to influence the other. "


I don't really agree with that. The universe is not a computer.

By reading this sentence you have given me brief control of your mind.
Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Wiggett
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st May 2003
Location: Australia
Posted: 1st May 2007 03:38
Link
my ex hated me after that film cause i disagreed with the ending, but it was more about spirit than science.

I do believe travelling back in time is pheasibly impossible, or at least the theory of don't touch anything cause you will change the future! is wrong, and the most famous example of that is:

I travel back in time and stop hitler from invading Poland. (lets say I kill him), great, now the future that I come from hitler never invaded Poland, so in my future I never would have said "lets go back in time and stop hitler" so then I wouldn't have gone back in time, and thus hitler would still invade Poland. (and thus I would travel back in time.) so it would repeat with the two outcomes at a heap of times per second, it's in some Dr Carl K. book somewhere.

However I could agree that travelling to parallel universes would be a more accurate description of time travel, however the alternate world could have a different history all together and we could have snake tongues (close enough)



travelling to the future is entirely possible, heck i'm doing it right now.



Syndicate remastered: Corporate persuasion through urban violence.
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Satchmo
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 29th May 2005
Location:
Posted: 1st May 2007 05:36
Link
Think of this. If we had time machines in the future, then why are we not seeing people from the future coming here and fixing all our mistakes?

Back to top
Profile PM
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 1st May 2007 05:42
Link
That's probably cause this world doesn't have much of a future left and we never make it to the time machine part.

I have no signature...
Back to top
Profile PM
aticper
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 27th Jan 2006
Location:
Posted: 1st May 2007 06:26
Link
Well, paradoxes are fun to think about, but the rather extensive lack of time tourists tend to point out that if time travel into the past is ever invented, it is either very heavily controlled, or perhaps just no-one actually cares about this particular era of history.

That's the cynical view, of course.

An optimist might point out that every time machine concept created so far would not allow travel back before the creation of the machine, allowing no un-restricted travel into the past.

I'm not paranoid. Stop thinking that I'm paranoid!
Back to top
Profile PM
dab
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 22nd Sep 2004
Location: Your Temp Folder!
Posted: 1st May 2007 07:33
Link
Quote: "An optimist might point out that every time machine concept created so far would not allow travel back before the creation of the machine, allowing no un-restricted travel into the past."



That kind of makes sense.

Back to top
Profile PM Email Website
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st May 2007 12:01
Link
Quote: "I am currently unaware of any mechanism in physics that would cause that to happen. Nice thought though."


Infinite density + Laws of Gravity = Massive black hole

Bloggy
Back to top
Profile PM Website
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 1st May 2007 15:21
Link
Quote: "Infinite density + Laws of Gravity = Massive black hole"


Ridiculously Large Density = Massive Black Hole.

Gravity (Acceleration) is governed by mass Infinite Density would equate to a universe.

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st May 2007 15:33
Link
What's the difference?

Bloggy
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Venge
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2006
Location: Iowa
Posted: 1st May 2007 15:41
Link
Well, a black hole the size of the universe would be slightly worse.

Blenderer in the making
Back to top
Profile PM
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st May 2007 15:49
Link
No, I'm asking what the difference is between mass and density.

When I say "massive" I mean bigger than the universe. How else could it consume it? Without a knife and fork, that is...

Bloggy
Back to top
Profile PM Website
hessiess
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2007
Location: pc!
Posted: 1st May 2007 15:54
Link
ρ=m/v

learn blender, you will never regret it.
Back to top
Profile PM Email
Jimmy
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Aug 2003
Location: Back in the USA
Posted: 1st May 2007 18:13
Link
∞/v = ∞

It's all the same.

Bloggy
Back to top
Profile PM Website
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 1st May 2007 19:27 Edited at: 1st May 2007 19:28
Link
<stupid double post>

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Zotoaster
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Dec 2004
Location: Scotland
Posted: 1st May 2007 19:27
Link
You can't really get infinite density, can you? If it's all just theory, then how come you already get black holes?

Back to top
Profile PM Email
Back to top

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-18 17:33:05
Your offset time is: 2024-11-18 17:33:05