Time

[itismesaj]

We seem to be having a failure to communicate on this whole "Time Travel" topic.

First off, let me affirm that time travel does not and cannot exist. Ever. I'm sorry to say this, but Doc Brown lied to you. Now here's why:

Say you could go to the past. You change something and then come back. When you came back you saw that you were living in an entirely different world because of that one event. However, in a parallel ti***ine that you created, life was just as you left it. THAT IS A PARADOX AND PARADOXES AREN'T TRUE.

Ahem.

Say you could go to the future. You change something and then come back. But oh wait. You can't go back because of what I just explained. So you stay there. But oh wait. That means that there's a gap in time where you don't exist. THAT IS A PARADOX AND PARADOXES AREN'T TRUE.

Ahem.

What I'm saying is time travels in one direction at a constant speed (if there is such a thing). Each event in time is predestined by the event before it. That is causality. Fuck with that, and you fuck up the time/space continuum and all reality is destroyed. But I'm not worried because you can't fuck up the time/space continuum because, again, time travels in one direction at a constant speed.


Whew.

Now that that's over, let's move on to Time LOOKING.

Eintein speculated that a person could, using causality as a basis on which to predict future events, see into the future. I'm not going to go into too much depth because I'm wicked tired, but just know that he did.

Since each event is predestined by the event before it, once said person looks into the future, that event, no matter what it is, is going to happen. It cannot happen any other way, because he/she saw it was going to happen. Again, if you want more explanation as to why, you're going to have to wait until tomorrow.


Okay, I'm going to bed. That's something for you to ponder, argue, debate, flame about.

[LNT-5265F]

actually there's a theory holding just as much credibility that completely contradicts you.

it involves "exotic matter" which is a legitimate thing, it's called a time travel soufle

[Slawter]

Watch "the tenth dimension" on youtube. its fuckin trippy, and actually does have something to do with this.

[RAV]

as far as i know exotic matter is just a mathematical theory (i may be wrong and if anyone does have evidence could you post a link).


If we are going with Einstein then you may note that he said that the universe was a "fabric" of spacetime. Space and time woven together, much like a shirt that you probably have on right now. If you take a mass and introduce this to a tight fabric you will notice that it dips. This creates your perspective of up and down. Because it is tight and the mass creates a dip then our planet moves in a straight line, the path in front of it changes direction, not the planet. Which means gravity is just a measurement of displacement.

TRAVELING:

Now that you understand this let me remind you that the name of this fabric is Spacetime. Now lets again think of a shirt. The threads running vertical we shall call space and the threads running horizontal we shall call time. If we take out all of our "space" threads what happens. The shirt falls apart because there is nothing to support it. The same happens if you take out all the "time" threads.

Now there are two forms of time travel. One is relativity and the other is what most people call time travel. Relativity lets you travel in time because you are only taking advantage of the curvatures of spacetime.
Also, an increase in velocity means a decreased rate of time. The faster you go the slower time gets (though time is the same for the place that you started). This change is so minute that there is only a couple of seconds difference between us and mars.
The reason this does not allow you to travel back in time is because you can not go faster and an infinite speed. Time will never become 0 (because then speed becomes 0 as well)(also it will never become a negative number[to travel back] because speed would also have to be negative). Time will get infinitely smaller though, which will give the illusion that you have stopped time. This won't work on earth though because you would not even be able to get close to earth because you are going so fast, which means that you must slow down, increasing the rate of time.
What you can do though is "travel to the future." What you do is increase your speed and just keep going. Say you go A x 10^B ms^-1. You have effectively slowed down time, only for the object that is traveling at that speed. Maybe you spend a year traveling at such a speed, while the world around you goes at normal rate. When you slow down and return to the area you started you land in the future. The problem is that you can never go back in time.


If we are not going with Einstein then you can believe whatever the fuck you want because none of this is proven, it is just theory (from math).

VIEWING:

Currently you are viewing the past. Because light takes time to move, because it is not instantaneous, you can not see something till the light reaches your eyes and is processed by your brain (this can seem instantaneous). Because time is a function of space the increase in space the farther in the past you see. Proxima Centauri is about 4.3 lightyears (1.3 Parsecs) away from us. This means that it takes 4.3 years to see what is happening on this star. We are seeing into the past. As you increase it more and more you see farther into the past, some scientists believe that if they could create a good enough telescope that they could see what it was like before the big bang. This is how we know about the beginnings of universes, because we can view millions, billions, of years into the past.

As far as i know you can not see into the future, but only predict it. This is kinda like the Terminator. They will never stop the machines from coming but can only delay them. If they stopped them then they would not know about them. Paradox (there are two definitions to the paradox. One where it sounds unreasonable but under investigation is true and the other way around)

[filthylucre]

woah, im impressed. i actually enjoyed reading this. its given me something to think about.

[RAV]

i can go into more if you want but i will need a day to catch up on reading and organize everything. Or you can google it.

Physics is fun! lol

[filthylucre]

i can go into more if you want but i will need a day to catch up on reading and organize everything. Or you can google it.

Physics is fun! lol

im googling it now

[RAV]

lol I haven't read what Michio Kaku's book but i have heard some good things about it. I was in Borders yesterday and i say the book so i skimmed through it, but sadly did not buy it.

also check out Issac Asimov. He is known for his science fiction but he wrote more nonfiction than scifi, and he has over 400 scifi books. Things like Multivac and noncarbon lifeforms

[A Deo et Rege]

I suggest you look up J. Richard Gott III. He has some interesting views on time travel, and since he is a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University he know a lot about it. I find everything he writes fascinating.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[Shanx]

I don't know much about time travel and I haven't really looked into it. But I do think I recall reading that you may be able to "time travel" by entering a black hole? Or something like that.

Well not for sure but its a possibility and its not total time travel, its more like skipping from place to place as a wormhole or something and to be able to enter, you have to go faster than the speed of light which is impossible to far.. I'll look into it more later.

(I'm probably going to get flamed for this....)

[RAV]

it is not impossible to go faster than the speed of light. Though Einstein said this he was wrong. E=mc2. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared (9x10^16ms^-1) This says the faster you go the more massive you become. Well all that means is that you need to just overcome this mass. But are engines are not efficient enough to go reasonably within the range of this being a problem.

Einstein said that when you approach the speed of light you become infinitely massive. Well this can not be the case because then light all around you would be exerting such a force on you. Since you can not even feel the force of light pushing against you it must have a small mass (F=ma), because it is traveling at such a high speed. If we do find out that time travel is possible, other than the way i stated earlier, we will have to rethink our universe because there either is no spacetime, or there is another unknown force that would have to hold it together.

Might i once again suggest a science fiction writer. Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game). It has some good stuff on relativity there, though it doesn't have too much fun concepts it is a good read.

Also these are courses at MIT. Always fun to read. I mean it even has string theory.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/index.htm

[itismesaj]

actually there's a theory holding just as much credibility that completely contradicts you.

it involves "exotic matter" which is a legitimate thing, it's called a time travel soufle

I haven't been able to find anything about a "time travel soufle" but I have been able to find out about exotic matter. I'm guessing that you're referring to the hypothetical space craft drive system that could cancel out energy with negative energy causing exponential acceleration, but I'm not sure.

[A Deo et Rege]

Einstein said that when you approach the speed of light you become infinitely massive. Well this can not be the case because then light all around you would be exerting such a force on you. Since you can not even feel the force of light pushing against you it must have a small mass (F=ma), because it is traveling at such a high speed. If we do find out that time travel is possible, other than the way i stated earlier, we will have to rethink our universe because there either is no spacetime, or there is another unknown force that would have to hold it together.


You should rethink your statement because Einstein was correct in stating that mass becomes infinite for any object traveling at the speed of light. I suggest you do a little research on the properties of light.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[itismesaj]

I didn't see your post, RAV, or I would have responded to it.

E=mc^2 has never been refuted. Ever. Light does not have "mass" (unless you consider relativistic mass "mass" in which case you shouldn't).

[A Deo et Rege]

I didn't see your post, RAV, or I would have responded to it.

E=mc^2 has never been refuted. Ever. Light does not have "mass" (unless you consider relativistic mass "mass" in which case you shouldn't).

hmmmmmm...................

That depends on which of two definitions of "mass" a particular physicist likes to use, and what type of light you’re talking about.

One definition of mass says that anything which has some gravitational pull on other objects has mass. By that definition, light has mass. This definition of mass is the same as the definition you get if you ask what "m" you have to multiply the velocity "v" by to get the "momentum" of an object. Momentum is a measure of how much stuff is moving which way. When things bump into each other, the total momentum doesn't change even though it might be traded between the objects. Think of when two balls bounce off each other. Light has momentum, which means we can actually measure the push it gives to objects it runs into. This is the definition used by Einstein, for example in the famous equation E=mc^2.

On the other hand, physicists often find it convenient to think of mass as something that doesn't depend on how an object is moving, also sometimes called the "rest mass". They call the mass of some object the mass that it would have according to somebody who says the object isn't moving. Light is always moving, so by this definition (or more careful versions of it) a light ray has no mass.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[itismesaj]

...Which is the definition of relativistic mass. Which is an outdated theory that is no longer given much thought by scientists.

I see we've read the same article, Deo.

[ItsAPoorlyKeptSecret]

i feel like a baby tryin to comprehend speech... so much to learn...

[itismesaj]

What you can take from this conversation is that time travel is not possible, and that light does not have mass (by modern day standards).

[ItsAPoorlyKeptSecret]

what if i take the light having no mass by modern day standards, but hold on to the dream that time travel is possible....one day

[itismesaj]

Wwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l..........................

Why not? If we discover some new formula that redefines all of physics, sure. But for now, let's just agree that time travel is not possible? In the future, maybe. Now, no.

That's the beauty of science. It is very simple to just drop a theory when one that is more logical and has more evidence to support it comes along.

[LNT-5265F]

I haven't been able to find anything about a "time travel soufle" but I have been able to find out about exotic matter. I'm guessing that you're referring to the hypothetical space craft drive system that could cancel out energy with negative energy causing exponential acceleration, but I'm not sure.

actually im talking about an artificial wormhole, where-in the exit of the wormhole is towed by space craft into the entrance. the space craft drive system that could cancel out energy with negative energy is powered by the same ol' stuff though, but HEY! all this drive system is that your talking about is a warp drive system. first developed by gene roddenberry. hahaha irony.

[A Deo et Rege]

Time travel is possible, but only to the future as time only flows in one direction. The rate at which time passes can be accelerated relative to an individual. That is, if you were to travel to a star 500 light years away at 99.99999999999999998% the speed of light(which is within the limits defined by physics), and then returned to earth at the same speed you will have only aged 30 years, but the earth will have aged 1000 years. This is the only possible means of time travel in our mono-dimensional reality.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[itismesaj]

If you were to travel to a star 500 light years away, traveling infinitely close to the speed of light (but never reaching it), then came back, you'd age 1000+ years, because it takes you 500 years to get there and then 500 more to get back. The Earth would age just as much as you.

To reply to LNT:
The ramifications of such a thing proposes many more questions than answers. Such as "How would we do this?" Which leads me to suspect that your theory is not as credible as mine.

[A Deo et Rege]

If you were to travel to a star 500 light years away, traveling infinitely close to the speed of light (but never reaching it), then came back, you'd age 1000+ years, because it takes you 500 years to get there and then 500 more to get back. The Earth would age just as much as you.

Not according to Dr. J. Richard Gott III professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University; you should read his book "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe." It has been proven that time slows relative to the speed at which you travel, and at 99.9999999999998% the speed of light the passage of time will slow to a crawl.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[RAV]

I like how a lot of you guys are repeating what i have said. The only difference in what deo and i have said is that i believe that it is possible to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. I have two reasons why i believe this.
1) Because Light does not have mass (which i was stating earlier, Einstein says that as an object goes faster it becomes more massive. Once it nears the speed of light it becomes infinitely massive, thus making it not be able to achieve the speed. Well you are not dead by light, which is traveling at light speed, and thus it should be infinitely massive, but it isn't. Did you pay attention this time Deo???)
2)We have gone faster than the speed of light in other mediums. There was an experiment where they sent a particle faster than light does, in water (which is about 3/4 of the speed of light in a vacuum [3x10^8ms^-1]).
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05148.htm
This site explains the experiment. If we can do it in one media why not the other.

[LNT-5265F]

*hi five deo!

same idea as particle acceleration. how many people remember that move time stoppers or whatever with the watch that accelerates the particles inside your body?

they made that movie off the exact same theory. if you accelerate x particles, and not y particles, then y particles would appear to be in slow motion to x particles, while y particles never even know x particles are there.

oh yah saj, your wrong.

oh fuck! just realised the initial post in this thread says that paradoxes aren't true. what kind of dumbshit babel is that? truth and paradox don't even belong in the same sentence! they have nothing to do with each other! dum fuck

[A Deo et Rege]

Yeah, a paradox is a logically contradictory statement that can neither be false nor true. A statement can only be deemed true or false if it can be answered, and a paradox is an unanswerable question.

As for RAV:

I was paying attention when I read your previous post, but apparently you have not understood what I was saying. Here are some facts: light has no mass, but it does have a measurable force; It is impossible, as defined by the laws of physics, for a person to travel at the speed of light because we have mass, and due to gravitational displacement our mass would become infinite once we reach the speed of light.

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[RAV]

You can neither travel at a velocity or have force without mass. E=MC2 states that there must be mass because of the energy of light. Lets say that you have 9x10^16J Well that equates to 1 KG. As I have said light is energy. As Einstein has said, energy has mass and mass has energy. What more do you need.

KE=1/2(mv^2)
PE=1/2mgh

I show you these because they are energy, that are not created without mass.


Do you have nothing to say about the fact that we have gone faster than light in other media?

[itismesaj]

Okay, explanation time.

When I was saying that you'd age 1000 years, I meant that you'd be traveling for 1000. So, I mean that it's not really time travel. It'd be like moving to the UK for forty years then coming back, and seeing the results. Minus that fact that in this theory, you wouldn't age.

And at the beginning, when I said that paradoxes aren't true, I was saying that those things couldn't be true. So maybe "paradox" was a poor word choice. But really, I was trying to make it as easy to understand as possible.

[Slawter]

My brain hurts. but this is interesting

[LNT-5265F]

HOLY SHIT! have we all forgotten about donnie darko? or was that before all you kids' time?

anyway, just happened to be on at like 4 am and my roomate and i were watching it. the entire movie is about the concept that i described as possible space travel. infact, they even use the terminology of artificial wormholes. they said the name of the theorist behind it, i believe it was hawkings? hawkins? anyway yah. i think i just proved that my theory is credible saj so go shove a fork up your ass and quit pretending your intelligent.

oh and a simple, intelligently googled search found pages and pages on exactly what im talking about. god dam deo, i thought this was suppose to be a forum for "enlightened individuals." in my opinion, your not to enlightened if you don't even know how to use google.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=equ&q=%22exotic+matter%22+%2B+%22artificial+wormhole%2 2+%2B+%22time+travel%22&btnG=Search

[itismesaj]

I googled the search you specified (I had already done my own searching before I posted last, but just to be sure) and it turns out that there are four models of wormholes. Two of which would tear space apart, one which would require over a billion billion tesla of magnetic power, and one of which depends on exotic matter.

1. The two that would tear space apart.
Let's let this one die.

2. The one that would require a billion billion tesla.
The physicist who created this isn't even sure what introducing that amount of magnetic energy would do to space. But he said that it is possible that it might create a wormhole. Most physicists do not agree.

3. The exotic matter one (i. e. the one you are talking about).
For the one which you are stating to occur, it requires the existence of exotic matter. However, there is no evidence that such a thing exists. It is theorized to exist as it would answer some questions in the theory of general relativity. But again, there is no evidence.


In terms of overall backing by scientists, and plausibility, I think my theory wins.

[LNT-5265F]

oh but i won't concede. it has nothing to do with whether i am right or wrong because neither of use knows whether i am right or you are wrong. we are guessing at guess work.

props for actually doing the research though; that's all i wanted from the beginning. here's the point, you can't argue your case against another if you don't have proper knowledge of the other to begin with. why did it take 3 days for you to reply to post 2?

to be honest i had only a vague recollection of this time travel shit from when i learned everything in this thread in middle school. so i just through something up in the air that you didn't even look into thoroughly without denouncing. i had to do the initial research for you myself. that's bullshit, mister, "im gonna lay down the law on time, it works this way and that and im the cookie monster!"

fuck dude. i don't even know where my point was.

....fuck it i need a cigarette.


edit:
HOLY FUCK! i remembered my point; you have no more knowledge in this field then anyone else in this thread does so stop trying to pretend your stating fact. your a 13 year old brat who needs to get beaten saj. that's truth whether your 35 or 8 by the way.


stop the drugs.:(

[A Deo et Rege]

You can neither travel at a velocity or have force without mass. E=MC2 states that there must be mass because of the energy of light. Lets say that you have 9x10^16J Well that equates to 1 KG. As I have said light is energy. As Einstein has said, energy has mass and mass has energy. What more do you need.

KE=1/2(mv^2)
PE=1/2mgh

I show you these because they are energy, that are not created without mass.


Do you have nothing to say about the fact that we have gone faster than light in other media?

To answer your question, yes, I know all about the Cherenkov effect; light travels slower relative to the density of the medium, i.e. air or water, and it is certainly possible for particles to travel through air or water at faster than the speed of light in the same medium.

Read this:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/faster-than-the.html

..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[itismesaj]

I actually do think I know more than most people about this stuff in this thread, somewhat thanks to you. I googled your search, and found out stuff I doubt nobody in this thread (including you) did not know.

And I'm 18, thank you.

[LNT-5265F]

"I doubt nobody in this thread (including you) did not know."

so you found out what everybody else already knows? including me?
say hi to your physics teacher for me monday morning, k?

[RAV]

And if you are going to pronounce that you are smarter than everyone else please use proper grammar. I mean it doesn't really help you out.

Well the thing about all of this is that there is no correct answer. Everything we have stated is theoretical. We all have made valid points that make sense scientifically. The thing is science is not perfect so we can not prove anything to be reality until there have been hundreds of tests to prove it.
In this sense we will not know if it is possible to travel faster than 3x10^8ms^-1 unless we actually do it. Because so far it is both theoretically possible and impossible.
We won't know if you can travel backwards in time unless it has been done.

We do know one thing though. It is possible to travel forward in time through the process of relativity.

[LNT-5265F]

if you new anything about me you'd realise that i have great brain that has been entirely burned out due to heavy use of mind altering substances for years. so anything i have to say, all you can do is take the main point from it as being anything worth anything. all the words around the main point are just words my brain throws out there.


and since fuckin when is relativity a process? we don't travel forward in time through the process of relativity; the theory of relativity makes it possible for us to travel forward though time.

[itismesaj]

Can't you see when I wrote that? It was five o' clock in the morning. I was so cranked up on caffeine I couldn't even see straight. If you'll see any other post I've ever made, I always speak correctly, using complex sentence structures. So don't call me out on one minuscule lack of grammar/mechanics.

LNT, you cannot say that you knew that already, or else you would have said it beforehand.

[LNT-5265F]

hahaha knowledge is not based what you open you mouth and let fly out.

[itismesaj]

I agree; knowledge is not based on what you say. However, the ability to apply knowledge to different situations is. For instance, I could say that there are eight planets in the solar system, but it wouldn't apply. It's the simple utterance of fact.

You could have said that there are four types of wormholes and explained what exotic matter was (since it would have applied, and you would have proved me wrong on some parts), but you didn't. So, I draw two possible conclusions from this. Either a), you did not know some of the things I stated, or b), you knew but did not understand its significance to our debate. I'm leaning more towards conclusion "a" because you grew defensive after post #32 (that is, until you edited your post).

Please don't think I'm debating you and not your statements. I have no doubts that you are a bright person. But make no mistake; I will defend my remarks.

[LNT-5265F]

saj shut up. please. your spouting bullshit now.


i didn't say shit solely because im a lazy stoner, and i see no reason to spoon feed you information.

from the very beginning i gave just enough information so that, if so willing, you could have learned the information on your own, instead of me wasting my time thinking and typing.

and from the beginning you failed miserably when you couldn't even look up the information on your own, but had to have me do it before you even considered it.

or perhaps you did look it up but decided to say nothing about it? if so you just proved my first point in this thread.

just shut up saj. seriously

[RAV]

the process of going forward through time because of achieving a high velocity is referred to as relativity. This is to differ from time-travel, because most people would assume that thats what you are talking about, but you aren't.

[A Deo et Rege]

hahaha knowledge is not based what you open you mouth and let fly out.

That's the quote of the day......pure genius.


..)/\(
<Deo>
..)\/(

[itismesaj]

saj shut up. please. your spouting bullshit now.


i didn't say shit solely because im a lazy stoner, and i see no reason to spoon feed you information.

from the very beginning i gave just enough information so that, if so willing, you could have learned the information on your own, instead of me wasting my time thinking and typing.

and from the beginning you failed miserably when you couldn't even look up the information on your own, but had to have me do it before you even considered it.

or perhaps you did look it up but decided to say nothing about it? if so you just proved my first point in this thread.

just shut up saj. seriously

Do you really want me to prove you wrong? Okay, I'll do it.

"saj shut up. please. your spouting bullshit now."
I was actually referring to Bloom's Six Levels of Cognitive Learning, whereas the application of knowledge is more prized than simple knowledge. I was saying that, while you may have had the knowledge, you did not apply it.

"i didn't say shit solely because im a lazy stoner, and i see no reason to spoon feed you information."
You didn't give us anything. You brought up a vague recollection of exotic matter, which I disproved, based on your research. You were trying to prove me wrong, but, in the long-run, you proved yourself wrong.

"from the very beginning i gave just enough information so that, if so willing, you could have learned the information on your own, instead of me wasting my time thinking and typing."
But you debated based upon your vague recollections! I used the researched, well-known, well-adopted theory of determinism as my backing; you, on the other hand, stated "exotic matter" and "time travel soufle" as the entire basis of your argument.

"and from the beginning you failed miserably when you couldn't even look up the information on your own, but had to have me do it before you even considered it."
Is that so? Post # 12 says things differently. In fact, my quote of you calls exotic matter a legitimate thing, not showing any evidence.

"or perhaps you did look it up but decided to say nothing about it? if so you just proved my first point in this thread."
Again, I did look it up. And discredited it.


I don't normally like to get this far into something, but blind disagreement without any facts to back it up is just ridiculous.

[LNT-5265F]

you win on account'a me just not really caring.

[itismesaj]

Okay. I'll take that.

[testtubebaby]

We seem to be having a failure to communicate on this whole "Time Travel" topic.

First off, let me affirm that time travel does not and cannot exist. Ever. I'm sorry to say this, but Doc Brown lied to you. Now here's why:

Say you could go to the past. You change something and then come back. When you came back you saw that you were living in an entirely different world because of that one event. However, in a parallel ti***ine that you created, life was just as you left it. THAT IS A PARADOX AND PARADOXES AREN'T TRUE.

Ahem.

Say you could go to the future. You change something and then come back. But oh wait. You can't go back because of what I just explained. So you stay there. But oh wait. That means that there's a gap in time where you don't exist. THAT IS A PARADOX AND PARADOXES AREN'T TRUE.

Ahem.

What I'm saying is time travels in one direction at a constant speed (if there is such a thing). Each event in time is predestined by the event before it. That is causality. Fuck with that, and you fuck up the time/space continuum and all reality is destroyed. But I'm not worried because you can't fuck up the time/space continuum because, again, time travels in one direction at a constant speed.


Whew.

Now that that's over, let's move on to Time LOOKING.

Eintein speculated that a person could, using causality as a basis on which to predict future events, see into the future. I'm not going to go into too much depth because I'm wicked tired, but just know that he did.

Since each event is predestined by the event before it, once said person looks into the future, that event, no matter what it is, is going to happen. It cannot happen any other way, because he/she saw it was going to happen. Again, if you want more explanation as to why, you're going to have to wait until tomorrow.


Okay, I'm going to bed. That's something for you to ponder, argue, debate, flame about.




wow jack ass. u know if everyone thought like u nothing would ever be achieved. if everyone thinks its not possible than why try? and einsteins time looking isnt really time look, if i remember learning it right than by traveling the speed of light and looking back at where u came from at a clock (i believe the example was) than the clock would eventually stop and all the people u see next to it would cease to move. once again im recalling this on memory, i think they said its because the light wouldnt be able to reach u with the "new" image and u would just see the same thing, time would either slow down or stop to ur perception based on how fast u were going. but thats not really time travel or time looking. cause u cant really race back to earth and that clock and be in the past cause as u race back time would "speed up" and ud be back to the same time u would normally be in. as for how time works, idk about straight line certain speed rule. i was trying to think of how that could really work. i mean if u wanted to go backward in time wouldnt u have to go faster than the speed of light by like a rediculous amount so that u can catch up to the light emitted by earth 100 years ago and align urself up with that light and spy on it? and see what the image is that was being shot from earth? is that how it works? lmao so by the time ur way the fuck back 100 years ago ur 100 light years away and counting. and all u can do is just spy on the past. as for forward in time...idk thats alot tougher...any ideas people. and i mean we should be figuring out how to travel that fucking fast. or not that fast but just be there instantly....hmmm
ideas thoughts?



one last thing. fucking with time space means nothing if we dont know it exists. destroy reality isnt real either because destroying everything as is would just make reality different, not destroyed. even after the end of everything theres still something, even if something is nothing...right? i mean since were not talking too much science here and more just talking out our asses and all the way from our half rotted brains than like u said, time moves in one direction at constant speed all u got to do is go faster than times speed. lets just leave it at this, time having a direction and speed seems like a pretty crappy and improbable explanation to how it works and what its doing. to me time is more of just a way to count what has happened and what will soon happen. not neccassarily a thing we can fuck with unless u failed first grade. maybe instead of trying to fuck with time space we should be focusing on controlling the world and universe around us as it goes about its duty. if we figure out how to stop everything from doing what it does it doesnt mean time stops cause even if were talking sci fi time stopping than time would continue on during that "time" frozen or stopped. just everything liek matter and shit would stop.....not time.....fuck this is hard im figthing myself on this one!

[itismesaj]

wow jack ass. u know if everyone thought like u nothing would ever be achieved. if everyone thinks its not possible than why try? and einsteins time looking isnt really time look, if i remember learning it right than by traveling the speed of light and looking back at where u came from at a clock (i believe the example was) than the clock would eventually stop and all the people u see next to it would cease to move. once again im recalling this on memory, i think they said its because the light wouldnt be able to reach u with the "new" image and u would just see the same thing, time would either slow down or stop to ur perception based on how fast u were going. but thats not really time travel or time looking. cause u cant really race back to earth and that clock and be in the past cause as u race back time would "speed up" and ud be back to the same time u would normally be in. as for how time works, idk about straight line certain speed rule. i was trying to think of how that could really work. i mean if u wanted to go backward in time wouldnt u have to go faster than the speed of light by like a rediculous amount so that u can catch up to the light emitted by earth 100 years ago and align urself up with that light and spy on it? and see what the image is that was being shot from earth? is that how it works? lmao so by the time ur way the fuck back 100 years ago ur 100 light years away and counting. and all u can do is just spy on the past. as for forward in time...idk thats alot tougher...any ideas people. and i mean we should be figuring out how to travel that fucking fast. or not that fast but just be there instantly....hmmm
ideas thoughts?



one last thing. fucking with time space means nothing if we dont know it exists. destroy reality isnt real either because destroying everything as is would just make reality different, not destroyed. even after the end of everything theres still something, even if something is nothing...right? i mean since were not talking too much science here and more just talking out our asses and all the way from our half rotted brains than like u said, time moves in one direction at constant speed all u got to do is go faster than times speed. lets just leave it at this, time having a direction and speed seems like a pretty crappy and improbable explanation to how it works and what its doing. to me time is more of just a way to count what has happened and what will soon happen. not neccassarily a thing we can fuck with unless u failed first grade. maybe instead of trying to fuck with time space we should be focusing on controlling the world and universe around us as it goes about its duty. if we figure out how to stop everything from doing what it does it doesnt mean time stops cause even if were talking sci fi time stopping than time would continue on during that "time" frozen or stopped. just everything liek matter and shit would stop.....not time.....fuck this is hard im figthing myself on this one!

Way to year-and-a-half carrion post. But I'll play along.

The simple fact of the matter is something that isn't ALREADY traveling the speed of light cannot REACH the speed of light, per e=mc^2. Therefore, one cannot even begin to speculate what would happen should someone attempt to reach the speed of light. They would become infinitely massive as they approached it. Ergo, it cannot be done.