Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. I think the book you meant to refer to was "Strange Attractors" That was what first introduced me to the 'splitting time' concept, and promted me to find out almost everything I could about that interesting concept.
  2. >That means that universe is not exactly similar to this universe so that universe is no longer a parallel universe.< I think the point of parallel universes is that they aren't the same as this one, or each other.
  3. This just popped in my head: Time Travel = Temporal Injunction Not sure about time; things like space-time continuum and timeline are so cliched now.
  4. Lara


    I'm not sure. I mean, if all the numbers tell me I'm going to be crushed into oblivion, I certaintly wouldn't want to be the first to try it out. I do understand what you're saying though. It's likely that alot of our current theories are going to be proven wrong eventually, if the past is any indication.
  5. That's not really a flaw, it's just the basic nature of time travel.
  6. Alot of people have made good points about the dangers of time travel. I think the good thing is this: Someone made a good point. A time machine probably won't fit in a pocket. It'll probably be the size of a building and cost billions of dollars per trip or something of the like. This would probably prompt the creation of a whole team of scientists who would calculate every little thing a person did in the other time. This would cut down on dangers. Kind of like the NASA of time travel. This is assuming there would be any danger, since one belief concerning TT is that its really just a side jump to a parallel universe. Either way, the downside is a low budget and penny pinching higher ups would help ensure that TT isn't put to saving the environment or the like, but probably taking over the world or something.
  7. Any risk involved with time travel to the past is the same as travel to the future. After all, any event is really just another events past. By travelling 10 years into the future, we could unknowingly prevent the universal vaccine from being invented 5 years after.
  8. When I said they weren't created, I meant that they might not be created activly by say, the flip of a coin. They might have already existed since the bigbang. <This message has been edited by Lara (edited 30 April 2001).>
  9. It could be that these parallel universes aren't created, but already exist, and have since the big bang. Still, we can't attempt to answer this question until we can successfully explain where the energy came from to create this universe. I'll leave this controversial question open for debate.
  10. It wouldn't really matter. Our history is set. The only changes these people would make is the history of a parallel universe. It's possible that once they activate they're device, they might never be seen again. Ofcourse, this line of thinking also has its flaws. There has been some evidence that might suggest time travel as the culprit, like human skeletons found in bedrock hundreds of million years old. If these are the remains of time travellers, they would most likely be from a parallel universe, and the changes they have made resulted in our universe. You're right; if people had access to a time machine, they would probably try to change history. Like WWII. We might have lost originally, and some time traveller changed it. This has been the basis of many sci-fi stories. I don't think completely preventing an event as big as a world wide war is practical. Suppose you killed Hitler. It's possible someone else would have gained power instead. Changing the outcome would be alot easier, by giving strategic information to the right people. Time travel is possible; wether it's practical or not is another story. The energy required is enormous, but given the rate of technology, who knows? <This message has been edited by Lara (edited 29 April 2001).>
  11. I'm not saying time dilation isn't possible. It's already been proven. But its possible at any speed, not just 0.1%c. Ofcourse, it's not practical at anything less than a significant percentage. Using curved space to atain near light speed is impractical, because you would need a pretty big curve, and that equals out to a gravity well strong enough to destroy any craft within its influence. I'm of the opinion that using high gravitational forces or relativistic speeds is not practical at this point in time because of the energy required, and another method needs to be found. The original post, I think, was if there was a way to simply explain time travel to the past. If you can travel to the future, you can travel to the past, but it means doing away with the illusion of tomorrow and yesterday. The old proposal of a time machine using wormholes is a good example. Leave one end of the hole on earth, and put the other end on a spacecraft traveling at near light speed. Eventually, the moving end of the wormhole could be pretty far in the future. One from that time could than jump through and arrive in the past. [This message has been edited by Lara (edited 28 April 2001).]
  12. As a body approaches the speed of light, its mass increases to infinity. This increases the curve on the space around it and represents itself as gravity. At infinite mass, the universe would collapse. Therefore, even time dilation through high speed travel involves gravitational forces.
  13. [This message has been edited by Lara (edited 27 April 2001).]
  14. You disagree with my opinin that travel through space has to take gravity into account? If you talk about curved space-time, you have to talk about gravity. It's not that I'm not listening to you, but it's just accepted fact that curved space is the basis of it. Really, gravity is at the core of time dilation, and can't be ignored. [This message has been edited by Lara (edited 27 April 2001).]
  15. We know space is curved, because it expresses it self as gravity. Any travel through space has to take that into account.
  • Create New...