Time Travel

ped said:

Iv'e allready read it tomorrow.

Click to expand...

How did you do that? I have not written it yet (in your time)! :crackup:

My head hurts! I'm going to crash.

Sorry, I'll dial back the flux capacitor.

"Marty, the only thing that can produce1.21 gigawatts is a bolt of lightning!"

he obviously never put his tongue on a 9v battery!

Oh, come on, it's not so difficult ..... all that you need to do for invent the time machine is come back from the future, from a time where the time machine was already invented, with the machine plans, and give them to yourself in the present, so you can invent it for the moment when you need it in the future for come back ..... more esy than so .....

:crackup:

"Marty, the only thing that can produce1.21 gigawatts is a bolt of lightning!"

Click to expand...

Wrong ..... a bolt of lightning, or drinking all in one time a bottle of "Balkan" vodka (88% alcohol, LOL)

Tux said:

Ok I'm sure some of you have heard of parallel universes, there may be an infinite number of them some physicists predict. Some believe that to be able to avoid paradoxes when going back in time or sending messages back in time that we would go back in time to a parallel universe similar to our where we can kill a grandpa and get away with it. :bumpit:

Click to expand...

damn, they stole my idea. kinda. well, my theory, from which this may spawn, is the idea that time isnt 1 dimensional. it could have any number of dimensions really, but for the sake of the argument i'll start out with a 2D example. it does solve paradoxes. the idea is that there is an event time which is what we think of when time travelling, and a sort of universal time. as such, we can do something in the past, and still be in the future of universal time, allowing it.



however, an object by itself cant create a whole new timeline just by its own actions (since all the other objects would continue at the same gradient) so it stands to reason that there is possibly an infinite number of lines criss-crossing to form a kind of time mesh, and that time travell could be possible by jumping to another line.

Also, instead of the rate of change of event time with universal time changing, what if some of the lines are just shorter than others, so that you could jump to an adjacent line, but be further back in even time, as demonstrated below. it does somehow bear a familiarty with the shape of the expansion of the universe ^^



however it does suggest that in the creation of time after the big bang, the universe is also actively creating event time for before the big bang as well

HIMNL9 said:

Sorry, but this point is wrong ..... Chuck Norris was not born, nor been a baby, you don't know ?

There are two versions, scientific one, and religious one .....

Religious one: in the beginning there was Chuck and God, and cause God was poor and had nothing to play with, Chuck lend him his "mecano" constructions set for 6 days .....

Scentific one: in the beginning there was Chuck Norris, but he was bored. all alone in the void, so one day he roundhouse-kicked the void and caused the big bang .....

:crackup:

Click to expand...

here is some time travel for you.. the video says it was made in 1978. but this song was written for Chuck Norris' kindergarten class. it was played at their funeral

on a more serious note... if you want to travel into the past, go to Cuba LoL.

How will you generate the 1.21 gigawatts needed to run the flux capacitor?

Uranium said:

How will you generate the 1.21 gigawatts needed to run the flux capacitor?

Click to expand...

with chuck norris' sweat.... duh!!!:crackup:

Well if you look at time as linear (in our universe), I believe there was no begining of time and there probaly wont ever be an end. The big bang was not the bigining of time but rather a phase in a cycle of many big bangs.

^^^ partially right... time is only relevant to the living. so in fact time will end. and the big bang was the begining of time for a chain of events that got us where we are today. so when our sun runs out of fuel in a few billion years, time will end for that chain of events that made it to the end of the suns life.

michael.

chipdouglas said:

^^^ partially right... time is only relevant to the living. so in fact time will end. and the big bang was the begining of time for a chain of events that got us where we are today. so when our sun runs out of fuel in a few billion years, time will end for that chain of events that made it to the end of the suns life.

michael.

Click to expand...

what are you basing this on? cos stephen hawking and most others would directly disagree. its generally agreed that time itself must exist as an independent identity to that of mere cognition. the aforementioned suggestion here is that time doesnt exist, and that things just happen at variable speeds. This sounds like a bit of a stupid suggestion to me since speed itself requires time to exist.

however, it does lead me to an interesting idea about the parallel universes idea. if the universe were to be sucked back in to a singularity, destroying time, then the conventional idea would be that all that happened before wouldnt have happened. then the universe expands out again from a big bang, and recreates time. except it wouldnt be recreating because nothing would have come before.
but, what if, because time effectively restarts and events happen, what if the resultant timeline would just be created alongside ours? and because the universe will keep restarting in this manner, there would be an infinite amount of realities alongside ours. its strange, because in a manner, it takes the universe to restart to create a new reality, yet because each reality would start off at the time our one starts off at, it'd mean that in our current time, the universe has already restarted infinite times.

^^^^ you and stephen hawking can tell me the sky is red all you want. but if you are dead time is irrelevant to you. if like in my example all people are dead, time for humans on earth is irrelevant.

i think there might have been a misunderstanding. as i do believe time will always be there. it just won't always be relevant.

michael.

chipdouglas said:

^^^^ you and stephen hawking can tell me the sky is red all you want. but if you are dead time is irrelevant to you. if like in my example all people are dead, time for humans on earth is irrelevant.

i think there might have been a misunderstanding. as i do believe time will always be there. it just won't always be relevant.

michael.

Click to expand...

i dont see how its relevance is relevant :thinking:

Fonduman said:

what are you basing this on? cos stephen hawking and most others would directly disagree. its generally agreed that time itself must exist as an independent identity to that of mere cognition. the aforementioned suggestion here is that time doesnt exist, and that things just happen at variable speeds. This sounds like a bit of a stupid suggestion to me since speed itself requires time to exist.

Click to expand...

Read up.

Come back when your brain hurts.

Newsflash: Time May Not Exist | Einstein | DISCOVER Magazine