Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The thought on time travel


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#16    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 08 January 2004 - 06:22 PM

I know I've said this before, but damn...amazing how people feel the need to overcomplicate a hypothetical situation...but here goes...

If time travel were possible, I think someone from the future would have popped up by now...however, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume that it is. That, however, does not make any difference whatsoever to history as we know it...

If a time traveler were to go into the past and influence events in anyway, then it has already happened...It amazes me how people struggle with that fact so much huh.gif Because the past has already happened, so too has the appearance of any time traveler that has been there; the very definition of time travel means that your point or origin doesn't need to have occured yet for you to reach your destination.

The past as we know it can't be altered...if it had been, then we would never have known about it, would we? tongue.gif As I've said before, it's probably quite possible for a hypothetical time traveler to influence events, but all they'd do is end up putting them in the direction history records them...if they did anything differently (say, someone from the year 2360 goes back in time and shoots Hitler when he was 15) then that's what history would record right now (in our case, the history books wouldn't make any mention of Hitler, and we would never have heard of him).

The multiverse theory overcomplicates the matter needlessly...I don't know what individual came up with that, but it's outright stupid coming from an educated person...if someone travels into the past, then everything they've done has already happened...they don't suddenly appear in a parallel universe, where the hell is the logic in that? rolleyes.gif  

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#17    secondhand

secondhand

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Salisbury

  • Bah humbug

Posted 12 January 2004 - 02:29 PM

Just a couple of thoughts from me, very possibly wrong. I'm a bit of a thicko I'm afraid.

Whoever said time was linear? Just because we are brought up in a culture where we are conditioned to believe that you "move forward" from point A to point B doesn't mean it's true. I don't know the ins and outs of it, but don't some Aboriginal Australian tribes believe that time moves in some kind of spiral? And when you die you enter "dream time"? I find it hard to comprehend, because guess what? I was always led to believe that time was linear! Just illustrates [badly] a point.

Plus, when people say that if time travel was going to be invented in the future then people from the future would be here now-look at the John Titor thing. Sorry to go over old ground but if there was a genuine time traveller, no one would believe him/her anyway.

There's a school of thought that says there is no past or future, only the present [can't remember who said it-might have been Foucault]. Obviously, the future hasn't happened yet so that doesn't exist, and the past is represented by objects that exist in the present.

My head hurts.




#18    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 12 January 2004 - 02:50 PM

QUOTE
The multiverse theory overcomplicates the matter needlessly...I don't know what individual came up with that, but it's outright stupid coming from an educated person...if someone travels into the past, then everything they've done has already happened...they don't suddenly appear in a parallel universe, where the hell is the logic in that?


it makes perfect sense
for every moment in time there are alternate universes
go back in time and you create another alternate universe

that said, we don't really know either way now do we:)


#19    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 12 January 2004 - 07:32 PM

Where do you propose these alternative universes come from? Where does the vast energy exist that would be required to run all of these universes simultaneously? What evidence is there to suggest that such places exist?

I'm afraid I still believe it's overcomplicating things...if anything, I think it's an excuse to explain why a plausible time traveller has never been recorded in history. "They might have appeared, but anything they did created a parallel universe".

Every transaction in the universe requires energy...so I'd like to know where the bright young physicist who came up with this idea thought the limitless energy that would be necessary to reorder time and create an entirely separate chain of events, yet somehow keeping the existing one intact, suddenly appeared from huh.gif


Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#20    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 13 January 2004 - 05:14 AM

actually i think it was more of an attempt to explain possible time travel with out the risk of paradox's.

But yes:P you do raise some valid points


#21    Xenojjin

Xenojjin

    Midnight Shadow

  • Member
  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

  • Ride the Air

Posted 13 January 2004 - 06:16 AM

Here is an interesting idea , I heard somewhere that if you look through a telescope at the earth from 100 lightyears away you will see the earth as it was in the 1970's ... I heard this in a museum so I am not sure if this is bogus or not .

Assuming its not bogus then perhaps one day we will be able to travel back in time , but not actually be able to interact with people or will they be able to see the time travelers . Much like a machine that allows you to astrally project through time since it has already happened ... or maybe at least a machine that allows you to look back into time and find out what exactly happened . Something like that would be really usefull ... too bad I have nothing except what I heard in a space museum ( A large one ) to support it .  

Posted Image

#22    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 13 January 2004 - 06:22 AM

i don't know about exact figures, but in theory xeno, yes you would be correct



#23    Seraphina

Seraphina

    Voted Best Member 2005

  • Member
  • 7,133 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2003
  • Location:Paisley, Scotland

  • Everyone likes a smouldering and sexy glare from a diminutive scientist.

Posted 13 January 2004 - 11:16 PM

Theoretically, you are correct...the reason you see it like that is the same reason the position of the sun we see in the sky is actually it's position 8 and a half minutes ago; because that's how long it takes light to travel that distance.

Assuming we could find a way to alter the rate at which light travelers, then it is possible we could view (though certainly not interact with) a moment backwards in time...however, I think it could only be achieved from the moment light was forced to begin moving at an altered speed. We can't very well effect light that has already completed its journey tongue.gif

Interesting concept though...

Side note: Time paradoxes are a stupid idea...any change that a time traveler has, or will ever make to the past has already occured tongue.gif a paradox is impossible, because if any change was made (say someone went back in time and succeeded in assassinating Hitler) then Hitler's face would not currently be in our history books.

It amazes me how people can't get their heads round that huh.gif  

Posted Image

Apparantly, over on Exchristian.Net, they say that I'm "probably the smartest person" on UM....that is so cool...

#24    Thistle

Thistle

    Mighty Midget Queen of the Faeries

  • Member
  • 2,284 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Scotland

  • Stick Girl

Posted 13 January 2004 - 11:44 PM

QUOTE (Seraphina @ Jan 13 2004, 11:16 PM)

(say someone went back in time and succeeded in assassinating Hitler) then Hitler's face would not currently be in our history books.


For the sake of playing Devil's advocate here......How do we know that Hitler did not actually survive and win the war ??....only to have a time traveller alter history to what we are aware of now ????

Just to make it plain...I think the whole idea of time-travel is a load of old hooey, but using history to say " see !!! it can't be possible " is not really the best argument against it.





whistling2.gif  


#25    Xenojjin

Xenojjin

    Midnight Shadow

  • Member
  • 2,745 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2003

  • Ride the Air

Posted 14 January 2004 - 02:21 AM

  ahhh , but then they wouldn't have to go back in time anymore because they already fixed it when the time comes to go back in time and destroy hitler , but then they would need to ... then they wouldnt... then they would .....  wacko.gif

Its a logical loophole which leads me to believe that time travel that allows the travellers to actually affect history is a load of BS . The only way to explain it would be parrallel dimensions but then wouldn't the previous dimension be destroyed ? whoops , another logical loophole . wink2.gif

Another thing to think about would be actually succeding in traveling in time instead of just looking back at it as a record in an astrally projected state , in order to do that you would essentially have to unravel the threads of time ... what happens when you unravel a thread ? It breaks apart , what I am saying is that it could destroy the very essence of time and space itself and wouldn't be a good idea even if it was possible .  ph34r.gif    

Posted Image

#26    bathory

bathory

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,302 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 14 January 2004 - 02:29 AM

QUOTE
Side note: Time paradoxes are a stupid idea...any change that a time traveler has, or will ever make to the past has already occured  a paradox is impossible, because if any change was made (say someone went back in time and succeeded in assassinating Hitler) then Hitler's face would not currently be in our history books.


yup, and all would be peachy until we go upto the events that led to someone being sent back, noone gets sent back, so hitler would still have existed, someone kills him, noone kils him, someone kills him etc etc

that is assuming that time requires the cause from the future.


#27    the rune guardian

the rune guardian

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined:14 Jan 2004

  • even a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step

Posted 14 January 2004 - 12:02 PM

The reson going back in time isn't posible is becose if you ga back and say kill hitler then you will never be born meaning that you can't go back in time to kill him the moment you change the past you change the futher and thus your self and the time travel would have gone differntly as for time traveling to the future that is posible.

Time is bend as you aproche the speed of light going slower and slower until it stops (probebly at light speed) meaning that if you would have a shutle that could go the light speed that the reletive time would be slower for you as for the rest of the universe meaning that in 2 seconds of time you could have traveld 200 years for instans.
(time does exist how can you bent it if it doesn't exist???  devil.gif )

As for the 100 light years away looking at earth that is the same as looking at a star. if you look at a star you see it as it was X years ago where X is the number of light yeas it is away becose that is howlong the light traveld to get here.

it is like a hot air baloon if you seen one flying and the turn on the flame you wil first see the flame and a second later you will hear the sound this is becose of the distance between you and the baloon. so you are hearing a sound from the past.
  


#28    secondhand

secondhand

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 593 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Salisbury

  • Bah humbug

Posted 28 January 2004 - 02:05 PM

I'm not sure about the whole thing. Perhaps paradoxes are impossible for a different reason? To use the Hitler example, perhaps you could go back in time again and again to assassinate him, but every time you would fail. Perhaps the past is set and there's no changing it, but the future isn't. Like if you could go back and kill your grandfather so you wouldn't be born-maybe if you tried it something would happen every time so you could never actually do it.

Travelling to a different time period would scare seven shades of shite out of me.


#29    thebarman

thebarman

    - Avatar Guru -

  • Member
  • 2,589 posts
  • Joined:08 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the pub

  • Avatar: A visual manifestation of your digital personality within a virtual world.

Posted 28 January 2004 - 02:58 PM

QUOTE (Xenojjin @ Jan 13 2004, 05:16 AM)
Here is an interesting idea , I heard somewhere that if you look through a telescope at the earth from 100 lightyears away you will see the earth as it was in the 1970's ... I heard this in a museum so I am not sure if this is bogus or not .

If you saw the earth from 100 light years away, you'd see the earth as it was 100 years ago, not in the 70's, think about it, it makes sense. Just as if you saw the earth from 30 light years away then you'd see it as it was in the 70's.

Also, there are a couple of theories suggesting why we haven't yet seen visitors from the future.

One is that you cannot travel backwards in time only forwards. Imagine driving forwards in a car, in order to go in reverse you need to slow down, stop, and then accelerate backwards. With time, once you'd managed to slow down, and then stop, you'd be stuck because time had been frozen.

The second theory has something to do with not being able to travel back before the point at which time travel is invented, so if its invented in 2004 for example, in 2005 you'd be able to go back to 2004 but no further.

Posted Image
Click the signature to get your own animated avatar
Are you artistic? Like designing? Come and join the Avatar Workshop!


#30    treznor72

treznor72

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Joined:31 Jan 2004

  • Karma knows everyone

Posted 05 February 2004 - 12:00 AM

I believe  

Edited by treznor72, 09 June 2004 - 06:00 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users