Jump to content

TimeLord

Members
  • Posts

    511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by TimeLord

  1. How dare you make sense again! rofl :D Just throw a dictionary at him and call it a day. :)
  2. Repetetively redundant reuterrances of the same thing really do actually become quite very old and annoying and bothersome and tiresome and useless. :)
  3. Ok, I had to laugh at your description. Good job on the humor, if that's what it was. :)
  4. Re: Can The \"TITANIC SHIP\" Be Saved By Time Travel..?? They were posh egotistical idiots. There's a reason nobody saved them. :D
  5. You've clearly misunderstood the tone of my and others' posts. Nothing here is meant to be insulting or degrading. However, if one is describing an established scientific theory, whether it be quantum mechanics or anything else, it is helpful to do so in the proper manner. I don't know everything about these things and I wouldn't pretend to, but when your refutation includes a link to the kaballah and the statement that you don't like math, I am left to conclude my post without the need for a counterargument.
  6. Same old crap. If you're a time traveler, are you really going to sit down for an interview?
  7. To my knowledge, quantum mechanics say nothing about the nature of time itself. It simply treats time as an independent variable, much like classical mechanics. You will see, at least in elementary teachings, there is a time-dependent and time-independent schrodinger wave equation. The former treats time as an independent (and therefore assumed to exist) variable, and the latter says nothing about time at all. Unfortunately, unless there is a spectacular QM equation of which I do not know (very likely), then QM won't help with time travel yet. New theories are needed. Isn't that exciting? There's still stuff to discover. :)
  8. Re: It's official: AGW Alarmists BROKE THE LAW! Ok, this is getting ridiculous. http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=UNH+scientists+to+study+cow+burps+.+.+.+and+more&articleId=c43c3680-3551-47ed-be8a-0b5b87880d6e
  9. Darby, how dare you use logic and reasoning in a counter-argument! :yum:
  10. Some cell phones can act as walkie talkies, meaning they can communicate in a limited range without cell towers. If you were travelling in time, you'd want a friend and a good way to communicate. :)
  11. TimeLord

    stuff

    It has come to my attention that neutrality (in the sense of neutral particles - neutrons, neutrinos, etc.) is a high internal energy state. The cause of this is a matter of understanding, but I have yet to experimentally verify it. Free neutrons are known to decay, and I am sure free neutrinos will also be shown to decay, as well as any similar neutral particles (neglecting photons). Two charged particles spatially separated from each other possess a potential energy dependent on their relative charges and the distance between them. If one of these particles suddenly becomes neutral, this potential energy disappears; the energy is absorbed into the particle itself. It will neither be attracted nor repelled, and, before the change, a constant force must be exerted to maintain separation of charges. Blah blah. Hungover again. :)
  12. Paradoxes are a philosophical problem, not a scientific one. They stem from the notion that time is immutable and therefore bound to a single static logical flow of cause and effect from an individual perspective bound to linear time. Let's focus on the physics and ignore the philosophical difficulties which arise, as they will work themselves out once time travel is realized in actuality. :D
  13. It's not a paradox. It's just not they way we're used to thinking about things. There's no need for the original atoms to disappear, either. It would simply create the illusion of instant, non-localized causality. What I mean by that is you could smash the "original" watch, and instantly the one which was transported to the past would change forms (to be smashed). In reality, when you smash the original watch, it goes forward in time as usual up until the point where it's sent to the past. Then a smashed watch is sent back in time instead of a shiny new one. Or, perhaps, we decide to send back a different watch instead, since the original one is broken. :oops:
  14. I just realized I didn't do the equation right (different units). Ummm... Try this: (c^2)dm/dt + dE/dt = 0 E = .5 m v^2 dE/dt = P = power and the first part is mass flow into or out of a moment in time.
  15. I understand what you're saying, but I feel your argument is flawed. Blah blah. Conservation of mass/energy says something like: dm/dt + dE/dt = 0 for all times t So if at some future time t(f) you transport some mass back to a past moment t(p), you get: at t(f): dm/dt < 0 because the mass doesn't exist there anymore dE/dt = -dm/dt > 0 so energy is expended at the future time. Meanwhile in the past: at t(p): dm/dt > 0 because mass has suddenly appeared dE/dt = -dm/dt < 0 so the mass has very low energy when it arrives in the past (it may be cold, or energy in the past may be converted to the new mass). Don't worry if it doesn't make sense. I'm hungover. :D
  16. Paladius, this isn't the first time I've seen you post regarding the mind when discussing time travel or related topics. Would you mind explaining (here or in another thread) your views on what the mind is, how it works, and how it's related to time travel (in as much detail as possible)? Thanks. :D
  17. Re: Earth's temporal gradient Bugger. :yum: Didn't know the idea was already conceived, but I shouldn't be surprised. Thanks for the reference, it's interesting stuff. Is there a (known) way to use the Schwartzschild metric for time travel to the past? :)
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
  19. Re: mini version of \"instant space-time travel\" That was brief? :confused: The problem here is that you've taken an idea which applies in a very special set of circumstances and tried to apply it to everything. Even if photons attract each other on silicon (certainly through an indirect effect), you cannot generalize this to photons in a vacuum, etc. You're free to perform experiments to try to verify your idea, though. :)
  20. Re: Calabi-Yau spaces\" � and the cosmic implications Just another bloke writing a book. Move along, nothing to see here. :D
  21. Re: Earth's temporal gradient Actually it appears we can just integrate both sides -(k/B) g dg = dp dx K = -(k/B) K g dg = dp dx integral(K g dg) = integral(dp dx) F = dp/dt E = F dx = (dp dx)/dt E dt = dp dx (K/2) g^2 = integral(E dt) dt* = B dt = g = sqrt((2/K) integral(E dt)) I'm tired so I may have made a mistake in my math. :)
  22. Re: Earth's temporal gradient We can simplify to 1 dimension and go further F(x) = -(k)gradient(dt*(x)) = -(k)(d(dt*)/dx) = dp/dt then cross multiply -(k)(dt)(d(B dt)) = dp(dx) g = B dt (B is beta) -(k/B) g dg = dp dx Now this appears to be a differential equation (g and dg, or dt and d(dt)). Sadly, this is not my strong point. Can anyone help me with this? :)
  23. Re: Earth's temporal gradient In general we can say something like F = -(k)gradient(dt*(x, y, z)) where dt*(x, y, z) is the clock rate at location (x, y, z) and k is a constant.
×
×
  • Create New...