Carl44;511457 wrote: ok i knew i should not have but i did i watched a programme on time travel eeek .. is it possible i think not if it were time travellers would be here right
ok keep it simple for jimbo is a moron at best
but if you have to time traval you have to move at the speed of light ok so far i'm still with ya
so if your in a rocket traveling at half the speed of light and someone turns on a torch behind you at what speed does the light go past you??? at half the speed of light i hear you say but no you would be wrong for as you speed up you move more slowly through time so the light comes past you at yes still the speed of light .... sooo if you speed up any faster and time stands still how the hell are you spozed to travell at the speed of light ? ???
jimbo has a head ache .. dr g or some other meat head over to you but keep it simple :-5 :-5 please
Traveling at the fastest speed known to the universe without the knowledge as to whether or not the universe has an end to it makes the concept of "time travel" moot...Think of it like a square...Draw a square on a piece of paper...The square represents the end of the universe as defined by it's borders...Take a line and begin to draw that line from one side of the square to the other...The line represents the fastest known element of speed by virtue of divine truth...You've reached the end of the square...Because there's an end it's impossible to go outside of that square...If you could that end point from which you're at wouldn't be the end...Which means that line would have to start from the beginning again on the side from which you've started...Then and only then is time travel possible...As I've said making the concept of "time travel" moot...
Hypothetically speaking let's take the fastest ever recorded element in the universe and say it's X...If there were no end to the universe traveling at X would only get you at a select destination faster than if you were to travel by Y(Slower)...If there were an end of the universe and you'd started back at the point from which you've started then that would make you someone to whom has time traveled...And upon such an instance it wouldn't matter at what speed you'd traveled at rather it would just be differential in at what time you got there...
I'd explained my theory in another thread...
K.Snyder;950826 wrote: A time machine only begins to be plausible upon the discovering if there's an end to the universe...If there isn't, then time travel is not possible...Time as we know it can only be determined by distance traveled based primarily on human perception...It's a man made invention to accommodate society...All it is is the association of needed outcomes based off of a scale that consists utterly on the Earths' rotation around the Sun...Meaning that when the planet Earth revolved around the Sun at a much faster rate the days were shorter in contrast to now, as well as in the future where the gradient becomes more exclusive...Ultimately in itself rendering the entire concept of "time" based upon the humans perspective inconclusive...This doesn't mean the philosophical sense of "time" does not exist"...The philosophical sense of time becomes pragmatic in that time in this instance is related to the break down of individual moments throughout a single persons' existence on this planet,..or however system you'd like to use but that doesn't change the fact that all of us as humans are mortal...The philosophical viewpoint of time is irrelevant though because we're looking for scientific probability in "time travel"...
Because no one knows if there's an end to space there's no possible way of basing a time structure within it...Therefore the hypothetical scenario of the universe being infinite renders the entire concept of time void by default...
It's not possible as I see it...
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=30