StarGateWars Forums

Kit-Fox wrote:Yo've quoted the bit where I said with enough time & effort, by which i was trying to convey that such things would be in the future & not the present if someone is willing to put in the time & effort needed.

Nevermind eh, I think we both had different ideals in mind & have got crossed wires on this

Probably, and a little off topic, lol.

though on topic, i agree with the idea that, a time machine can only be used to go back to when it was developed, and not before, but can go into the future.

Sarevok wrote:
though on topic, i agree with the idea that, a time machine can only be used to go back to when it was developed, and not before, but can go into the future.

why?

Sarevok wrote:Now, since a mass that approaches the speed of light becomes infinitely heavy, and the speed of light isn't sufficient to pass back out of a black holes, once it passes the event horizon, it is impossible to be able to achieve this. Yet, i imagine it's possible, there for it must be.

not strictly true, objects mass does not change, only its relative mass changes, same for relative length and time

Hitchkok wrote:

Sarevok wrote:
though on topic, i agree with the idea that, a time machine can only be used to go back to when it was developed, and not before, but can go into the future.

why?

see thats a matter of contention

if you define an object by its co-ordinates (x,y,z) & with a fourth time co-ordinate t - (x,y,z,t)

at a given t, (x,y,z) are defined. i.e. it is HERE, NOW. it was THERE, THEN

but, where will it be in t+dt?

it can be at any x,y,z, which is unoccupied

but, if u make it so that it is at (x,y,z) at t, when it was previously at (x',y',z') at t

then you have the same object existing at two seperate places at the same time...problematic methinks

now, if u try to put it at a point back in time, which is different from where it was at that point in time, you would encounter the same problem

thus, the components of a time machine, would only be able to travel forward in time, otherwise they would interfere with their previous selves (prior to the construction of the time machine)

at least, thats the interpretation i take from this lol

Londo Mollari wrote:

Hitchkok wrote:

Sarevok wrote:
though on topic, i agree with the idea that, a time machine can only be used to go back to when it was developed, and not before, but can go into the future.

why?

see thats a matter of contention

if you define an object by its co-ordinates (x,y,z) & with a fourth time co-ordinate t - (x,y,z,t)

at a given t, (x,y,z) are defined. i.e. it is HERE, NOW. it was THERE, THEN

but, where will it be in t+dt?

it can be at any x,y,z, which is unoccupied

but, if u make it so that it is at (x,y,z) at t, when it was previously at (x',y',z') at t

then you have the same object existing at two seperate places at the same time...problematic methinks

why? and i'll elaborate.
why would the existence of a steel rod interfere with the existence of another steel rod?
now, you'll say that it's okay for two steel rods to co-exist, but not for the same rod to exist twice (in the same point in time). and i ask again, why?
are steel rods sentient? are their "components", electrons and protons sentient? if we break the steel rod, or melt it, can we then send it back? even though the electrons are the same electrons? i don't see any way an electron can recognise another electron as the same electron from the future. and since we are all basically electrons, protons and neutrons, i don't see why would that be a problem.
an another thing. say you build a time machine, go one year into the future, stay there for a month, then go six month back.
so if you left january 2011, you've been at january-february 2012.
say you then go back six months, to july 2011. what will happen in five months time, when you reach january 2012 again?

i guess what i'm asking is, what reason do you have to assume that the spatial co-ordinates are a function of the time one?
we all know that the time co-ordinate is NOT a function of the apstial ones (we can have an object in the same location for more than a "point" in time). why would the opposite be true?

thats why its a matter of contention

are (x,y,z) dependent of t, or are there more variable (n dimensions) to take into consideration

phase for example, if you know anything about wave-particle duality, then you know matter can behave as a wave, in which case it has a wave function and a phase, amplitude etc...and potentially could interfere constructively/destructively with itself and other waves

thats one possible reason for an inability to exist at two places at once, each particle having a phase dimension, thus the object sent back in time would have to exist in a different phase to the past version of itself (potentially a different universe - which would deal with paradox problems)

it may be that each particle has a kind of barcode-esque dimension, which labels each mass/atom/etc as unique, and no two masses may have the same value, in a way similar to the fact that no two electrons can have the same four quantum numbers

Well, time travel is very possible in a certain direction (although the engineering is a big challenge).

Its simply a matter of getting close enough to the speed of light. you get close enough, and you could travel across the universe within a human lifetime.
The downside is that trillions of years would have passed outside of the spaceship so there would be no return to earth.
ok, so its not traditional time travel but ending up trillions of years in the future fits with the general definition.

Another advantage of travel at near light speed is that it could allow a near limitless number of humans. if people are constantly leaving at that speed we could explore everything. and over the time frame that would require, they wouldnt all return to swamp earth (or its replacement).

Some would say the engineering is beyond us. so was the ability to fly or talk to someone across the globe. im sure we will achieve time travel (and many other outlandish random crazy things) as long as humans remain to innovate and solve problems while building upon the work of those who went before.

humans are too clever. our imagination and ambition are vast. if we survive long enough, we will get time travel.

I think we travel to another universe, and in that universe, it is at a different point in the timeline, and if we make changes, we would have to wait there to change it, as to get to the future, we would have to go to another universe so the changes wouldn't be in effect. If you think about it, this solves the grandfather paradox.

Two electrons can have the same four quantum numbers... just not in the same atom

An alternate Universe wouldn't technically be time travel, just dimension travel, which I assume would work differently...

but basically what you're saying with the time machine not being able to go back further than when its invented sounds a lot like you're making a save system for the Universe.

So my questions:Would your time machine make everything go back to the exact location and speed it had at the point you're trying to go back to? wouldn't said time machine have to know the exact position and speed of every molecule for every instant that you could travel back to?

That's a lot of information

Hitchkok wrote:i guess what i'm asking is, what reason do you have to assume that the spatial co-ordinates are a function of the time one?
we all know that the time co-ordinate is NOT a function of the spatial ones (we can have an object in the same location for more than a "point" in time). why would the opposite be true?

I don't think it would be a problem... Unless the two objects come into contact with one another (at which point the waves could interfere with each other, amplify each other?!) so you can imagine it might be dangerous to go back in time when some of the carbon in your hand might have been part of a plant, or in the atmosphere

shooty08 wrote:so you can imagine it might be dangerous to go back in time when some of the carbon in your hand might have been part of a plant, or in the atmosphere

you mean to tell me i am made of carbon? according to "scientists" and the Govt, its a toxin


...whoops my bad, wrong topic

point taken all the same KMA.

And yes, Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon make up about 99% of the average human.

Removed

[quote="[KMA]


...whoops my bad, wrong topic [/quote]