Jump to content

Lara

Members
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lara

  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

    Time

    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.
  16. The thing is there could be time loops, or a reversal going on. But we wouldn't know about it.
  17. We've beat this topic into the ground already.
  18. RE: BLAH i'm always late!! I'd call a clock that tells time only twice a day a broken clock. ------------------ Light a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a night. Light a man ON fire, and you keep him warm for the rest of his life. I never judge someone untill I've walked a mile in his shoes...and than he's a mile away and shoeless, so I don't care.
  19. I read that book. It's one of my favorites.
  20. Space and time are interconnected (hence the phrase space-time) so maybe certain spatial properties have correlating temporal one's as well. When you're in a moving train and you toss a coin, the coin (seems to) go straight up and back down. (Instead of appearing to fly back, opposite the direction of motion). This is because it's intertia kept the coin going at the same pace as you. An observer off the train would note the coin really made an arc through space, but the coin tosser wouldn't notice this. Maybe a temporal intertia acts on a traveling time machine too, seeming to keep it in one spatial point, even though the universe is constantly moving. On the second comment, two points can occupy the same space, as long as they're seperate temporally. A point is a combination of spatial and temporal coordinates. So a time machine might exist here at 3:10, but it didn't exist there at 3:09. (remember, everthing is moving, so the place the time machine departed in is quite a distanceaway) It wouldn't be a problem when looked at from a higher perspective. You notice in 'The Time Machine', the traveller returned to a different spot than when he left, saving Mr. Well's from offering an explaination. That sly dog. <This message has been edited by Lara (edited 08 February 2001).>
  21. If you're talking about displacement when the time machine enters that time, it wouldn't matter where it is. Even space is full of junk, stellar material, and the like.
  22. It's all relative. At the speed of light, time seems to stop (as judged from an observer) but the spaceship occupants will still be able to move and stop the ship whenever they want. However, where/when they'll be is the question.
  23. The mulitiverse theory, basicly, is that everything that can happen, does happen. It doesn't 'decide' to split if you change history, or if two snowflakes collide or don't. The possibilities already exist. Anyway, who's to say we have free will or thought? For all we know we could be playing a role, like mindless zombies. Not a pleasant thought, but just as possible as anything else. I guess the big question is why? If there are infinite universes, what would the point be of their existence? If time travel is possible, it would prevent paradoxes. Is that the only reason, like some sort of self preservation mechanism?
  24. You touched on alot of points, so I'll try to take them individually. First off, just a note, even with a sex change you can't have any children. *My older self might try to kill me to experiment with time paradoxes. If he succeeded he wouldn't live long enough to succeed!* Sure he would. See, it is possible for your future self to kill you. (Not you you, but an alternate you, since by his time traveling, he will arrive in an alternate timeline, not yours.) One of the ways for that to happen is if there are parallel universes. *If my older self gives me a copy of his autobiography would this cause a paradox?* Look in the book. Does it say anything about recieving an autobiography from your future self? If not, than you have a paradox. Even it does, why write the book when you already have it? *My certain future cannot be written unless it has already been predetermined. If I can't stop these events from happening to me (including what I will do) then I have no freewill!* What is freewill? If you could see one hour into the future, you can see what you're going to decide. If I want an icecream, I can just look in the future to see what flavor I picked. That could imply destiny. Let's say I don't like that and I change my mind, picking strawberry. But since I can see in the future, I know I'm 'destined' to pick strawberry, so I change the flavor again, and again, etc. The end result would be I'm looking at infinite possibilities of choices, which can be resolved with parallel universes; each of my 'other selves' can each get a flavor and be happy. (Oversimplication, but it's just an analogy.) *Since I already have this book I didn't write it. I just copied every word out of the book I was given by my older self. Is that possible? How can a book exist if no one actually wrote it?* That reminds me of another classic time paradox. An inventor is working to build a time machine and it's not going to well. Suddenly, there's a flash of light and a man appears in the room, sitting in a futuristic contraption. "Hello," the man says. "I am a historian, here to witness the building of the first time machine." "Amazing," the inventor says. "But I can't seem to figure out how to build one." The historian smiles. "No problem. Just look mine over and copy it." The obvious question is, who invents the time machine? The answer would seem to be the inventors 'other self' who occupies another universe. *...but I don't see why physical laws would prevent time-travel from creating matter...* But there is a phycical law. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed." A book, or a time machine spawning from nowhere would put more energy into the universe than it started with. This is one of the arguments against time travel, but I think it can be solved with a transferance from this universe to the alternate one the time traveller is from. If 'they' come here, something, of exact equal energy, has to go there to balance everthing out. How can you do that? Heck if I know. *I don't think that when my older self travels back in time he'ill be changing history* Ah, but he will. Wether your future self intends to create a paradox or not, DIRECT (no parallel universes) time travel would always lead to one. Ever heard of that story where a butterfly flapping his wings in africa can create a tornado in the US? It's the domino effect, one small change leading to bigger ones. Say your future self left on a clear, sunny day. When he arrived in the past, the air he displaced could eventually create a thunderstorm on the day he leaves, creating a lightning bolt that short circuits his time machine, preventing him from leaving. Granted, that's not likely to happen, and I'm oversimplfying everthing. Even if his displacement of air, or movement of a single molecule didn't drasticly effect time, it will still be a change that wouldn't have happend if he stayed in his own time. Since he did create a change that didn't exist in 'his' past, he'd have to be from another universe. Anyway, the point is that time travel seems to imply splitting timelines, no matter your intention. *I simply couldn't prevent myself from being born so there is no paradox.* You're right. There is no way he can prevent you from being born. And with splitting timelines, there never is a paradox.
  25. Sorry Roel, but I don't really understand what you're saying. Why wouldn't he be aware of him, even if he was one nanosecond early? If I say I'm going to meet my friend at starbucks at 10 PM, and I'm a minute early, I'm still probably going to meet her. If, in fact, Pauls future self is going back to see him, I don't know if 'young' Paul would ever meet him. Paul might invent a time machine and go back and meet himself, but he will never have met his future self. It's the whole alternate universe and splitting time theory. Since Paul will be changing the past by traveling back in time, he will end up in an alternate universe, not the one the present Paul now occupies. Me, I wouldn't want to meet my past self. I've had a pretty sucky life, but it could have been alot worse. If I did give her some advice it might put her in the wrong place at the wrong time, and end up dead somehow. I guess the point is you never know how your interactions will effect the time lines. ------------------ Light a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a night. Light a man ON fire, and you keep him warm for the rest of his life. I never judge someone untill I've walked a mile in his shoes...and than he's a mile away and shoeless, so I don't care.
×
×
  • Create New...