[quote]pookie wrote:
Now the trick question: If you turn on a flashlight in your spaceship, how fast will the light be moving, relative to you? Relative to some outside observer?
[/quote]
Obviously, there would be no light. Your flashlight would just shine everlasting darkness…much like Madonna’s vagina.
[quote]T-Bone2 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…so my son went back in time and caused TC to leave Muscle Media 3 years before he did in the alternate reality forcing this site to be constructed earlier than before…
Could you ask him to pick me up some MAG-10 while he’s back there?[/quote]
He said he did but your grandson went back in time and stole it. I suggest you send him a strong message…like abstinance.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Obviously, there would be no light. Your flashlight would just shine everlasting darkness…much like Madonna’s vagina.[/quote]
Gee, thanks for that lovely mental image. You just ruined my lunch break.
The “obvious” answer is wrong. You’d see the light normally, and if you could measure its speed relative to you, you’d find it was going at light speed. In a vacuum, light always moves at the speed of light for any and all observers.
The outside observer would see the light moving at light speed, with you apparently hot on it’s tail, slowly falling back.
Only if you both met later and had a talk about it would you notice something fishy. He’d say “Damn, you weren’t losing by much, that light could barely escape you.”; you on the other hand would say “Are you nuts? That beam of light went and left me standing there like I wasn’t moving at all.”
The reason for those non-obvious facts is that time is relative for each observer. Since the speed of light is constant for all observers, the logical conclusion is that time itself varies for each observer depending on their relative velocities to each other, or to some other frame of reference.
[quote]pookie wrote:
The “obvious” answer is wrong. You’d see the light normally, and if you could measure its speed relative to you, you’d find it was going at light speed. In a vacuum, light always moves at the speed of light for any and all observers.
[/quote]
w00t! 1 m 31337, d00dz!
Speaking of the speed of light:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/08/07/australia.lightspeed/
Blah blah blah blah…
You all are making my head hurt…
Would I go back in time if I could?
Yes.
Do I think it’s possible?
No.
Where would I go, what would I do if I did go back in time?
I’d hang with Jesus for a couple days, during his Carpenter endeavors and ask him to give it too me straight on him being the real Messiah.
I’d offer some modern day meds to help Doc Holliday with his tuberculosis… Just long enough for him to write his memoirs.
I’d find Andy Warhol in the 50’s and tell him to “knock that goofy shit off and do something worthwhile, ya big weirdo…”
I’d track down Hunter Thompson at Owl Farm, one day where he’s mellowed by too much weed and booze, and listen to him talk.
Finally:
GAINER
i’d go back to the 40s and beat everybody up.
since everybody in movies from the 40s are uber panzoid and movies = reality…
[quote]TShaw wrote:
An article in Omni Magazine years ago (anyone remember that?) talked about a method that used controlled black holes to transmit information to the past–but only to the point where the BH-controlling machine existed. So once you built a working model, you might start receiving messages from the future immediately.[/quote]
If I remember correctly, these black hole or wormhole schemes do not violate causality. In other words, the other end of the machine has to be far enough away so that if you traveled there at the speed of light after receiving a message, you would get there after the message was sent.
So you couldn’t use the information to win the lottery, or anything good like that.
This entire topic reminds me of how people must have thought about air flight in say 1850.
What if you had told someone in 1850 that in 150 years man would routinely be able to travel 300 miles an hour while 30,000 feet in the air and at the same time talk to someone across the planet, while watching people on a screen that had been dead for 20 years?
Yea…everything is far fetched until it happens.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
This entire topic reminds me of how people must have thought about air flight in say 1850.
What if you had told someone in 1850 that in 150 years man would routinely be able to travel 300 miles an hour while 30,000 feet in the air and at the same time talk to someone across the planet, while watching people on a screen that had been dead for 20 years?
Yea…everything is far fetched until it happens.[/quote]
Those things might have appeared “far-fetched” at the time, but none of them caused any paradoxes. Time travel does; you can dream up a bunch of weird situations where you get to kill your dad, or where you exist simultaneously in multiple copies. That’s why it might not even be possible.
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
This entire topic reminds me of how people must have thought about air flight in say 1850.
What if you had told someone in 1850 that in 150 years man would routinely be able to travel 300 miles an hour while 30,000 feet in the air and at the same time talk to someone across the planet, while watching people on a screen that had been dead for 20 years?
Yea…everything is far fetched until it happens.
Those things might have appeared “far-fetched” at the time, but none of them caused any paradoxes. Time travel does; you can dream up a bunch of weird situations where you get to kill your dad, or where you exist simultaneously in multiple copies. That’s why it might not even be possible.[/quote]
Time travel is possible because I say so, I say so because I am in fact from the future. I can’t prove it by making any predictions for you because the only way you can go back in time is if you don’t give away any secrets of the future, if I did that, time itself would be damaged and could possibly crumble around us. Therefore as I want to continue living you’ll just have to trust me that i’m actually from the future.
V
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
This entire topic reminds me of how people must have thought about air flight in say 1850.
What if you had told someone in 1850 that in 150 years man would routinely be able to travel 300 miles an hour while 30,000 feet in the air and at the same time talk to someone across the planet, while watching people on a screen that had been dead for 20 years?
Yea…everything is far fetched until it happens.
Those things might have appeared “far-fetched” at the time, but none of them caused any paradoxes. Time travel does; you can dream up a bunch of weird situations where you get to kill your dad, or where you exist simultaneously in multiple copies. That’s why it might not even be possible.[/quote]
You are leaving out the possibility that we could not in fact disrupt anything from the past. Perhaps we could only view the past and not interact. Then you could not accidentially kill your grandfather etc.
Your answer reminds me of what those folks from 1850 might have said about viewing dead people. “That’s impossible because you would have to be able to look into the after life and no one can do that.”
My point is that I don’t think any of us are capable of thinking of how this could be done…exactly.
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
This entire topic reminds me of how people must have thought about air flight in say 1850.
What if you had told someone in 1850 that in 150 years man would routinely be able to travel 300 miles an hour while 30,000 feet in the air and at the same time talk to someone across the planet, while watching people on a screen that had been dead for 20 years?
Yea…everything is far fetched until it happens.
Those things might have appeared “far-fetched” at the time, but none of them caused any paradoxes. Time travel does; you can dream up a bunch of weird situations where you get to kill your dad, or where you exist simultaneously in multiple copies. That’s why it might not even be possible.[/quote]
Actually, Ray Kurzweil talks more on this topic. His term is a singularity (like math’s integer/0 or physic’s black holes). Any place where our current models and understanding are completely uncapable of forseeing it and/or accounting for it. Pookie, without lift , gravity and flight are paradoxical. As for the paradoxes in time travel I’d say the paradoxes don’t ever occur because of parallel timelines in parallel universes, but as I said, once we’re past the ‘event horizon’ of a singularity, it’s all just make believe.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Time travel is possible because I say so, I say so because I am in fact from the future. I can’t prove it by making any predictions for you because the only way you can go back in time is if you don’t give away any secrets of the future, if I did that, time itself would be damaged and could possibly crumble around us. Therefore as I want to continue living you’ll just have to trust me that i’m actually from the future. [/quote]
In that future, had you finally managed to win the JREF’s million dollar challenge? If so, how old was I when I got my cut?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are leaving out the possibility that we could not in fact disrupt anything from the past. Perhaps we could only view the past and not interact. Then you could not accidentially kill your grandfather etc.
Your answer reminds me of what those folks from 1850 might have said about viewing dead people. “That’s impossible because you would have to be able to look into the after life and no one can do that.”
My point is that I don’t think any of us are capable of thinking of how this could be done…exactly.
[/quote]
But “time watching” is not exactly time travel, is it? I’d be useful to solve crimes and get history correct, though.
Or you could kill your grandfather, but you’d just affect all those parallel universes in which your grandad got killed at that moment. (From the “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics).
And your TV analogy is wrong. You might be seeing images of people long dead, but you’re seeing recorded images; images that were taken when they were alive. You’re not watching them in the afterlife…
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Actually, Ray Kurzweil talks more on this topic. His term is a singularity (like math’s integer/0 or physic’s black holes). Any place where our current models and understanding are completely uncapable of forseeing it and/or accounting for it. Pookie, without lift , gravity and flight are paradoxical. As for the paradoxes in time travel I’d say the paradoxes don’t ever occur because of parallel timelines in parallel universes, but as I said, once we’re past the ‘event horizon’ of a singularity, it’s all just make believe.[/quote]
Someone once said that singularities might indicate defective theory, not defective nature. Many of the current physical problems that involves singularities might be explained correctly (and without singularities) by better theories. String Theory, for example, was initially promising because it got rid of a bunch of “divisions by infinity” that crop up in quantum mechanical equations.
I don’t get your lift/gravity/flight part… If you mean that at some point we didn’t understand the mechanics of flight, you’re right. That didn’t make it “paradoxical.” Birds flew, and we were pretty sure they weren’t breaking any laws of physic while doing it. Unfortunately, we have no known example of time travel in nature. At least not going backwards. We know that by going fast enough, time passes at different rates and we could theoritically visit the future. But you’re not coming back. It’s more like a permanent exile to the future than any kind of “travel.”
[quote]pookie wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are leaving out the possibility that we could not in fact disrupt anything from the past. Perhaps we could only view the past and not interact. Then you could not accidentially kill your grandfather etc.
Your answer reminds me of what those folks from 1850 might have said about viewing dead people. “That’s impossible because you would have to be able to look into the after life and no one can do that.”
My point is that I don’t think any of us are capable of thinking of how this could be done…exactly.
But “time watching” is not exactly time travel, is it? I’d be useful to solve crimes and get history correct, though.
Or you could kill your grandfather, but you’d just affect all those parallel universes in which your grandad got killed at that moment. (From the “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics).
And your TV analogy is wrong. You might be seeing images of people long dead, but you’re seeing recorded images; images that were taken when they were alive. You’re not watching them in the afterlife…[/quote]
I am aware of that, in fact the point that I was trying to make was that the people from 1850 would not understand that the images were “recorded.” They would not have that concept. Hence they would be assuming that we are looking into the after life.
And as far as flight goes, I’m sure they would imagine some sort of a large model of a flapping bird as that was their only baisis to understand flight.
I guess the real point is this: We are so far from understanding how this could be done that none of us can say that it can’t or it can be accomplished with any degree of confidence.
[quote]pookie wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Actually, Ray Kurzweil talks more on this topic. His term is a singularity (like math’s integer/0 or physic’s black holes). Any place where our current models and understanding are completely uncapable of forseeing it and/or accounting for it. Pookie, without lift , gravity and flight are paradoxical. As for the paradoxes in time travel I’d say the paradoxes don’t ever occur because of parallel timelines in parallel universes, but as I said, once we’re past the ‘event horizon’ of a singularity, it’s all just make believe.
Someone once said that singularities might indicate defective theory, not defective nature. Many of the current physical problems that involves singularities might be explained correctly (and without singularities) by better theories. String Theory, for example, was initially promising because it got rid of a bunch of “divisions by infinity” that crop up in quantum mechanical equations.
I don’t get your lift/gravity/flight part… If you mean that at some point we didn’t understand the mechanics of flight, you’re right. That didn’t make it “paradoxical.” Birds flew, and we were pretty sure they weren’t breaking any laws of physic while doing it. Unfortunately, we have no known example of time travel in nature. At least not going backwards. We know that by going fast enough, time passes at different rates and we could theoritically visit the future. But you’re not coming back. It’s more like a permanent exile to the future than any kind of “travel.”
[/quote]
We had no known concept of how a “heavier than air” craft could violate the laws of gravity!
I’m thinking that this is an impossibility…yes I know that supposedly NOTHING is impossible, but look at the improbability of the time travel argument. IF it were at all possible, first off, that would mean that our time continuum does not exist as we know it. Past, Present and Future are all being played out in some sort of simotainious parallel venue, meaning that what is happening for us today, is occurring in a thread of existence just as yesterday and tomorrow are also being enacted.
Secondly, IF we do harness this power, wouldn’t the parallel world of tomorrow ALREADY have visited the present and thus made time travel known? Why if such things will be discovered are we living in the world as we know it? It doesn’t make sense that after time travel has been discovered that it would not have already been used.
In theory, each war could have already been avoided. 9-11 could have been avoided, and each and every calamity that we now know could have been changed. Time travel not only gives us the power to shift the paradigm of logical reasoning, but it defies the existence of pain, death, and destruction.
It has not happened, and will never happened. We all live on one existent plain, and you cannot travel parallel in reverse upon it.
I hope this makes sense, or maybe I’m just rambling…either way, I say it can’t be done.
simotainious? that’s awesome.
i think that intelligent life has existed, exists, and will exist in the future in most if not all galaxies, yet none of them have ever or will ever achieve the level of genetic development, technology, energy requirements because the length of their life source (planet, sun, etc.) isn’t long enough.
pookie, how long is it before the earth will be engulfed by the sun?