you cant see me Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 i own a time machine :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Hehe Im sure you can pick up one from Ebay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danshome Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Also, by "universal" time, I meant the "concept" of time throughout the universe, not the usual, Universal AC Adapter! One Plug for all your Needs!!!... Sure - that's what I understood you to be saying. But the point is that while "time" exists as a physical property of the universe, there is no such thing as "universal time" - the property is constant, but there is no "universe clock" that ticks independently to our measurements and acts a definitive counter. And just for the record, time is not a concept, in the same way that width is not a concept - they're merely fundamental properties of the universe. (merely?! :D ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonBlur Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Okay, I think to really understand that the concept of time exists and is natural, take the infamous 2 atomic clocks example. One of them is on earth, and the other on a jet or any space vehicle away from earth, as they have conducted experiments, you would find that at a given instance, the atomic clock on the spacecraft would have gone faster than the one on earth. Why? Because "time" in outer atmosphere from earth is different(time progresses faster i assume) from near earth. And I think that is related to einsteins theory of relativity, and has to do with gravity distorting time(don't quote me on that though ) That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I normally don't mind hearing everyone's theories because it could give a better insight to my own and i welcome that. But your just speaking out of your ass, you don't know anything about space time. Read a few books and study a bit of physics, then you will realise that time is a common variable to workout a variety of different spacial equations.And the reason why the atomic clock was going faster in orbit was because there is no gravity in space. Gravity/Acceleration dilates time. On earth there is a constant acceleration of 9.8m/s so time is slower for us. In Jupiter, time would pass by even slower. And if you were to stand next to a black hole (which can have the mass of 1000 suns) time would slow down a lot. You are both way off here. The part about acceleration/gravity is basically correct, in the second response post, but the experiment you are trying to refer to did not involve a spacecraft in orbit, and had nothing to do with gravity. You're speaking of the experiment in the 70's when they had an atomic clock on the ground, and one in an aircraft, and flew the aircraft for a predetermined amount of time (and a predetermined distance) and then landed and compaired the time on both clocks. They found a difference of a few millionths of a second, which is significant, considering how long the experiment lasted. You may have been confused when you heard about the cosmonaut that was on Mir for, well, I don't remember how long, but they did the math and determined how much "younger" he would have been than everyone else on earth. And you have it backwards, the clock that is moving (or moving faster than another one) would show that LESS time has gone by, not more. If you were travelling at light speed from point A to destination B back to A, the people at point A would be much older than you when you returned (due to time dilation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thren Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 There?s a simple example why time travel itheoreticallyb> impossible: Say John travels from the future back 90 years and lands his time machine smack dab on his Grandparents while they where busy conceiving Johns father, killing them instantly. This would create a paradox i.e.: if John?s father was never born then John would never have been born and as a result would not have been able to travel back in time and kill his Grandparents. But then if the Grandparents didn?t die that would mean that John?s father was born, and John was born and then travelled back in time and killed his Grandparents . Dumping us neatly back to the start of the paradox. So my opinion: time travel could be possible, but only as obse:whistle:whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonBlur Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 well most of u guys seem to be arguing the theory of time travel, what my point was (as DirtyLarry tried to expand on) what other explanations can u guys give to the fact that the aliens we conjure up nowdays always look the the traditional type? what i mean is you know the big head skinny body image of a alien, well what made a human (if they did make it up) present it that way. and even if they are from outer space, what makes you think they will have eyes? because in their home planet they could "see" by sounds? what makes you think they have 2 eyes? you guys know what im saying? (watch the movie pitch black - prime example of seeing with sound, and even if they have eyes why not 1 or 3 or 4, why exactly 2). the theory i presented makes sense because now only does it account for the things i mentioned above but evolution states that these things can happen.yes maybe the sun died in the year 130000 but that doesnt mean humans could not have moved to another planet? if they are looking for life on mars now what makes you think they wont go out to search for life on other planets (thus giving good conditions for humans to survive). do you guys really think mankind would give up its existence with one sun dying? lol hell no! when a man is about to die he does anything possible ANYTHING to avoid that from happening. well then you wouldnt think they travel to another planet in another galaxy to survive? (and look at how fast technology evolves, just compare todays technology to 50 years back) they could well have the technology ready in about 1000 years. and another thing if they do go to another planet then they would become FULL aliens right! but im saying on the other planet they could adapt to their new surroundings and through evolution, well you know where im going with this. so these FULL aliens then time travel (now it could be any year on the other planet - even 5,000,000 years after the sun died) and well they come and probe us (just like archeologists are fasinated with fossils). and all you guys who present all these theories about time travel being impossible etc, well think about this, all these theories have been made up by people who think at 10% max of their brain capacity. well wouldnt you think if they used up the rest of 90% what we could achieve, some of these therories would definately be expanded, some would be shattered, some would be proven wrong. is the earth flat? no, why? well because its been proven but that didnt stop people using that logic 500 years ago, to them that was 100% correct, wasnt it? note: dont flame me on my spelling mistakes im dyslexic. Ok, back to the main topic though, I know you started a new one because we started talking about time travel (it's soooo interesting though!). What you have said still doesn't explain why these aliens, who are actually us in the future from another planet after Earth has been engulfed by the Sun, would be dissecting ourselves in the past. That still makes no sense to me whatsoever. As for the evolution of 2 eyes and seeing light is concerned... Animals see the visible light spectrum because it is the most abundant form of light that exists. Heat is way too hard to detect when the weather is cold. Think of being a polar bear and trying to catch fish in water that WOULD be clear ifyou saw visible light, but since you see only heat energy, you can't see ****. And two eyes? 2 eyes creates stereoscopic vision, so you can see in 3D, for spacial relationships. Fish with the eyes at the sides of their head, even when they DO have 2 eyes, can't judge distance, they don't have steroscopic vision. BUT, two forward-facing eyes is the most effecient way to enable a being to judge spacial relationships without having to use audio. And if you could only see with sound, you would be required to make a sound whenever you had to see, which is not very efficient. The only animals that see with sound and are blind never live on the surface of a planet. This also means you can't navigate effeciently in wide-open spaces. So if you were to, say, go to the surface, you'd be lost, and would NOT be able to develop technology to travel into space. To make complicated tools, it would either take you way too much time, or you would literally need to generate accurate sound waves at ALL TIMES to see what you were doing in real time. Not to mention that sound is MUCH slower than sound, and would not work on the surface simply because you wouldn't see things at a distance until they were nowhere near their previous location. Heat dissipates over distance and would also not work well on the surface, or for creating tools that would be needed for space travel, some of which would simply just not register enough heat energy to be able to "see". All of this adds up to this: any species that could create tools and technology to travel in space would most likely be able to A) see in the visible light spectrum (maybe not ONLY, but it would pretty much be essential) B) they would need stereoscopic vision, or something better, but through evolution, I'd think if two eyes did the job, there would be no reason for more (but if their planet was darker, their eyes would be much larger to let more light in). Name one non-insect that has more than two eyes on this entire planet throught all of evolution. Then do research on why those insects even HAVE more than two eyes. Then try to explain why an alien would have more than two eyes for any reason whatsoever, which would give them an advantage as a surface-dwelling, tool-building species. Also, we and Apes are the only species able to manipulate and use tools in any effective way, because of our hands, and the fact that we can walk on our LEGS and grab with the hands on our ARMS (even though apes and monkeys travel on all-fours for the most part, while walking around). Evolution is all about effeciency of living to stay alive. The form in which we live is so far the most effecient design we have seen (on our planet) to travel long distances with minimal amounts of food and water (and also be able to run quite fast), make tools, communicate verbally and physically, respond quickly to stimuli and do all other actions (like swim, climb, fight, etc.) all at the same time AND without evolving into radically different versions of the same species over the entire planet as well (other than small differences like skin color, etc.). All of those reasons, I think, is why an alien species is actually very likely to look somewhat like us. :D What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danshome Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 There?s a simple example why time travel itheoreticallyb> impossible:Say John travels from the future back 90 years and lands his time machine smack dab on his Grandparents while they where busy conceiving Johns father, killing them instantly. This would create a paradox i.e.: if John?s father was never born then John would never have been born and as a result would not have been able to travel back in time and kill his Grandparents. But then if the Grandparents didn?t die that would mean that John?s father was born, and John was born and then travelled back in time and killed his Grandparents . Dumping us neatly back to the start of the paradox. So my opinion: time travel could be possible, but only as obse:whistle:whistle: Of course, the only mistakes in that argument are assuming that paradoxes are impossible and that history is fragile and will simply shatter upon hitting a paradox. Who knows. I've always thought that paradoxes are cute and cuddly, but I think that my imagination is just warped... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thren Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 What do you mean that a paradox might be possible? By its definition its not, a paradox is two things that contradict each other, only one of them can be true. Granted, time as a concept might be robust enough to handle a paradox but so what, I could probably take a bullet in the arse without dying, but that doesn?t mean I should. Now there are two possibilities how time would handle this 'paradox' a) create a loop forcing everyone to relive the events over and over with no knowledge of the previous loop. (Thank you Star Trek) b) remove the cause of the paradox from the time stream completely i.e.: I my example the grandfather might develop low motility and the grandmother might have a hostile environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Well like i said on the other post.... :p The theory is, there are an infinite number of universes out there, all slightly different to each other in some way. So if you wanted to travel 40 years into the past and kill your father, the 'you' in that wordline will not be born obviously, but you will still exist because you have travelled from a different universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMonkey Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 There?s a simple example why time travel itheoreticallyb> impossible:Say John travels from the future back 90 years and lands his time machine smack dab on his Grandparents while they where busy conceiving Johns father, killing them instantly. This would create a paradox i.e.: if John?s father was never born then John would never have been born and as a result would not have been able to travel back in time and kill his Grandparents. But then if the Grandparents didn?t die that would mean that John?s father was born, and John was born and then travelled back in time and killed his Grandparents . Dumping us neatly back to the start of the paradox. So my opinion: time travel could be possible, but only as obse:whistle:whistle: From my point of view, John wouldn't be able to kill his grandparents, because any changes you make in the past have already had their effect in the time that you came from. eg: You go back 300 years in time and set up a criminal with a different name to help him outrun the law etc.. (for the purposes of my explanation, we will say Peter Pictus). You go back to your own time and you discover that your neighbour is doing som geneology research, and that they can not get back further than 300 years, that they cannot find anyone who lived before Peter Pictus. OR We could try a different avenue - you go back 50 or so years in time and set your grandparents up on a date, resulting in them falling in love and having your father, who inturn fathered you. This sort of relies on Fate/Destiny which I don't really believe in, but thene again its 1:33am in the morning, and I'm rambling and its still 22C outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thren Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 And now your heading off into dimensional travel, moving perpendicular to the current of time instead of along or against it. So you're saying that John would travel from dimension A to the past of dimension B, and therefore prevent that John from being born, but how would John be guaranteed that he'd end up back in dimension A. Also the mere fact that John knows that he in effect killed his grandparents would present a paradox, at least for John. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thren Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 _//_TechTV your argument is valid but it completely ignores any type of event that would prevent the person from travelling trough time in the first place. You're saying that if John went back in time and killed his grandparents, when he got back to his own time this would have somehow already had its effect. i.e.: he would know that he killed his grandparents even before he travelled back in time. But that is where the paradox comes in. The effect of John killing his grandparents is that he would not be born, i.e.: wouldn?t exist and therefore cannot travel through time and kill them. Unless he returns to his own time and all of a sudden (from his point of view) those people are no longer his grandparents. :huh:h: does anyone else?s head hurt?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedogg Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Regardless of whether or not Time travel is possible and whether "aliens" are evolved humans. The likelihood of this theory is VERY slim. Out of the umpteen billions of planets/solar systems/galaxies out there, plenty of which developed long before ours, I find it highly probable that another planet-species evolved in a similar manner to how earth-humans evolved. I also think its likely that they've reached an advanced stage long before we ever came into existence. To not think this is actually the case is very "The world is flat and we are the center of the universe" minded. Given the magnitude of everything, I could very well believe that there exists an exact twin of our solar system even. Now given the odds that there exists another planet-species being our "aliens" vs the odds that humans have evolved to that extent AND have developed time travel AND would travel in time potentially causing god knows what....my money would ride with the first option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjStiky Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I just finished reading all the posts in the 2 threads about this subject. All I can say is, Time is one of those things we will never be able to harness because we will nuke ourselves out of existance way before we get that advanceced in science!!! Die terrorists... DIE! Or maybe a :alien: will pick me up before the big bang and save me. And explain to me how time travel works. hehe But seriously... ever since I saw the first "Bill and Ted's excelent adventure" movie, I've allways wanted to time travel. Looked cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMonkey Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 _//_TechTV your argument is valid but it completely ignores any type of event that would prevent the person from travelling trough time in the first place. You're saying that if John went back in time and killed his grandparents, when he got back to his own time this would have somehow already had its effect. i.e.: he would know that he killed his grandparents even before he travelled back in time. But that is where the paradox comes in. The effect of John killing his grandparents is that he would not be born, i.e.: wouldn?t exist and therefore cannot travel through time and kill them. Unless he returns to his own time and all of a sudden (from his point of view) those people are no longer his grandparents. :huh:h: does anyone else?s head hurt?) taking that into account, then John WOULD be able to kill his grandparents, but before he returns to his own time (he would be prevented somehow ??) he would have to find new Grandparents, but this wouldn't have an effect on who he is etc.. as their characteristics etc have already been given to John in the years following the date in which he switched his grandparents around - because he is their descendant already, from the futu:blink:ink: I have a headach:whistle:tle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkellner Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 taking that into account, then John WOULD be able to kill his grandparents, but before he returns to his own time (he would be prevented somehow ??) he would have to find new Grandparents, but this wouldn't have an effect on who he is etc.. as their characteristics etc have already been given to John in the years following the date in which he switched his grandparents around - because he is their descendant already, from the future. :blink: I have a headache.. :whistle: If a person traveled back in time and killed his grandparents nothing would happen to him. This scenerio would just create an alternate universe, he would travel back into this universe and probably not have a family. But since he was back in time when the change happened he was unaffected by the change. ...................[-].past.(grandparents) ....................|............................... ....................|............................... ....................|............................... .................../.\.............................. .....path 1.../...\..path 2................... ..(normal)../......\..(alternate).......... .............../.........\.......................... .............[-]........[-]........................ you are on path 1, if you travel back in time and kill your grandparents you create an alternate universe, which is path 2. this is the path you'd travel back to if you go back to the future. in order for you to go back to the initial path you'd have to travel back in time and kill yourself before you killed your grandparents. the theory goes further than this, but that's the basic layout. and trust me it works, i've tested it out a dozen times. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts