|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 23, 2019 10:44:21 GMT
My theory is that spacetime is curved like a overlapping grip band wrap, so that some places/moments lie very close side by side and even vulcanization can happen.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 23, 2019 11:37:04 GMT
Assuming as a pure thought experiment, and knowing real time travel is impossible since time is an abstraction created by humans, then I think I would go back in time and just stay there. I would quietly make bets on sporting events and invest in Apple or Microsoft when they were just unknown start-ups. I wouldn't really affect anything, but I would certainly live comfortably. I could buy some savings bonds and put them in a safe deposit box, then jump forward 40 years and cash them in along with the now super valuable stock shares, then hop back to the 70's and re-invest the same money. Yeah, I'd use the time machine as a big, fat, laws-of-physics defying money laundering ATM. The only world event I would change would be the number of zeros on my bank statement. Gotta be careful: when you're back in present time, the funds you take back with you to reinvest all have to be from that time period. Meaning your bills all have to be printed in the 60s-70s. Take a look in your wallet, the earliest any of you will see is possibly the 1983 series $20s. The last series printed without the magnetic strip in it. The little things will screw you up. Sure, that's why I'll buy diamonds and gold bars, property, etc. Not paper dollars. It's simple money laundering. Only, money laundering is a crime after the fact of doing it, but with a time machine, I can launder my money BEFORE I earn it- so it's all nice and legal.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 23, 2019 12:29:06 GMT
I'd travel to the future, coming back with a bag of nanobots, command them to transform all gold and diamonds into Cold Steel machetes! (1000 kg gold + 50 kg diamonds = 1 cutlass machete) Muaahaahaaa!
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 24, 2019 21:48:00 GMT
I wouldn't worry about it. Traveling backwards in time is not possible. The laws of causality, thermodynamics, and the conservation of matter/energy would necessarily be broken in the process, and those are all pretty concrete. Actually, physicists wrangle about it quite a bit. Apart from pop science books/articles, they mostly completely ignore it. The centre of physics research is condensed matter physics. They don't care about time travel. The field of quantum information came out of considerations about causality, but that sprang from locality vs non-locality, rather than time travel. The fundamental issue of time that gets attention is the "arrow of time", why we see a difference in physical phenomena depending on whether we look forwards in time or backwards, as exemplified by the 2nd law of thermodynamics ("entropy increases") and radiation (we often see a radiation field (e.g., radio waves) emitted (e.g., by an antenna), but we don't see an incoming radiation field being sucked up (where said radiation field just existed, without having been produced by anything)). GR leaves the question open, quantum doesn't care one way or the other (remember Feynman modeling antimatter as normal particles moving backward in time?), and some people question if time really exists as a dimension at all 'Tis true. Time travel is not prohibited by known physics. (And the possible time travel example of antiparticles as backwards-time-travelling doesn't even violate causality. How other examples would collide with causality remains to be seen, if we ever find such examples.) It's already proven that you can go forward in time by moving at a greater speed, ... or by sitting deeper in a gravity well. Time runs slower on the surface of the Earth than it does in orbit (gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity). I wouldn't call this, by itself, "time travel". We already travel forward in time. Using time dilation (either due to motion or gravity) simply changes the rate of time travel, fro 1 second/second to something else.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 24, 2019 22:01:34 GMT
"Got it!" (Newton) "Nope!" (Einstein) "You didn't have the faintest idea!" (Ranjid Chow)
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 25, 2019 1:16:23 GMT
It's already proven that you can go forward in time by moving at a greater speed, ... or by sitting deeper in a gravity well. Time runs slower on the surface of the Earth than it does in orbit (gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity). I wouldn't call this, by itself, "time travel". We already travel forward in time. Using time dilation (either due to motion or gravity) simply changes the rate of time travel, fro 1 second/second to something else. Almost. Except you forgot relativity as it relates to the observer. To the observer in the gravity well (or the high-velocity traveler), time would pass at exactly 1 second per second. Looking outside of their own reference frame they would measure time passing at a different rate, as would and outside observer looking in. But to the traveler, their own time is the same as always. Because time is not a function of physics- it's a man made construct that is based only on measuring something else and assigning a value to it.
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Nov 25, 2019 11:02:33 GMT
The real question is how many times has the timeline been reset already? We would never know as the reset would automatically put us in a what we consider the normal timeline. From what I have read over the years, going back could be a possibility but going forward is not possible. There are a lot of deep thoughts on the subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2019 16:25:25 GMT
The real question is how many times has the timeline been reset already? We would never know as the reset would automatically put us in a what we consider the normal timeline. From what I have read over the years, going back could be a possibility but going forward is not possible. There are a lot of deep thoughts on the subject. Assuming there is only a single 'timeline.' The multiverse hypothesis posits a nearly infinite number of universes arising from the consequences of differing possibilities. Which leads to the hypothesis that 'time travel' is essentially jumping between different probabilistic outcomes. One consequence of which could be that a 'time traveler' would, in effect, have almost no chance of ever returning to their 'own universe' because branching possibilities would produce alternate universes from the point of departure.
|
|
|
Post by nerdthenord on Nov 25, 2019 18:50:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nerdthenord on Nov 25, 2019 18:53:26 GMT
Also, look up quantum foam theory. It seems better at leading to a theory of everything than old ideas like Supersymmetry and String Theory.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Nov 25, 2019 20:03:54 GMT
The real question is how many times has the timeline been reset already? We would never know as the reset would automatically put us in a what we consider the normal timeline. From what I have read over the years, going back could be a possibility but going forward is not possible. There are a lot of deep thoughts on the subject. Assuming there is only a single 'timeline.' The multiverse hypothesis posits a nearly infinite number of universes arising from the consequences of differing possibilities. Which leads to the hypothesis that 'time travel' is essentially jumping between different probabilistic outcomes. One consequence of which could be that a 'time traveler' would, in effect, have almost no chance of ever returning to their 'own universe' because branching possibilities would produce alternate universes from the point of departure. It's also possible that what we experience as "time" is not actually a single axis but another whole set of dimensions, with the apparent "arrow" of time being simply the direction in which we're naturally falling, i.e. a temporal "down"; and that while it might be possible to go forward and backward ("flying" instead of freefall, so to speak) in order to actually change how things are you'd have to move sideways instead, effectively jumping lanes to a different timeline.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Nov 25, 2019 20:05:46 GMT
I say stationary but in truth every object is moving, just at different speeds. ...and, as far as we can tell, only in relation to each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2019 20:09:00 GMT
Why is it always about killing adult Hitler when he's at the height of his power lol. Why not just go bang his mom before he's born and steal her from Hitler's dad. Or join the first war that he was part of and commit friendly fire Why make it hard 😂
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Nov 25, 2019 20:16:37 GMT
Why is it always about killing adult Hitler when he's at the height of his power lol. Why not just go bang his mom before he's born and steal her from Hitler's dad. Or join the first war that he was part of and commit friendly fire Why make it hard 😂 Because a) at that point in time he hasn't actually done anything atrocious, he just has some really dang iffy ideas that were fashionable among the edgelords of his time, and b) the people behind the rise of the Third Reich would just find some other frontman instead that you'd have to deal with further down the timeline, anyway. It'd be like trying to punch off Voltron's head before it has actually joined the gestalt and become the head of Voltron.
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Nov 26, 2019 0:17:46 GMT
A change to the timeline to save thousands or millions could result in actually saving them. You could also wipe out just as many or more who would never be born. You could also create something worse.
|
|
christain
Member
It's the steel on the inside that counts.
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by christain on Nov 26, 2019 0:32:54 GMT
A change to the timeline to save thousands or millions could result in actually saving them. You could also wipe out just as many or more who would never be born. You could also create something worse. "You could also create something worse." EXACTLY the point of my making of this topic.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 26, 2019 2:17:06 GMT
Time is an illusion, lunch time doubly so.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 26, 2019 2:19:45 GMT
Why is it always about killing adult Hitler when he's at the height of his power lol. Why not just go bang his mom before he's born and steal her from Hitler's dad. Or join the first war that he was part of and commit friendly fire Why make it hard 😂 Because a) at that point in time he hasn't actually done anything atrocious, he just has some really dang iffy ideas that were fashionable among the edgelords of his time, and b) the people behind the rise of the Third Reich would just find some other frontman instead that you'd have to deal with further down the timeline, anyway. It'd be like trying to punch off Voltron's head before it has actually joined the gestalt and become the head of Voltron. EXACTLY my reason why I wouldn't monkey around with the killing Hitler scenarios. Because you take out one bad guy- wait until he is bad, or kill him as an infant and avoid it all? Kill his parents? Somebody else comes along and does a similar thing. Jim Jones. Pol Pot. Kill them also? Why not take out their parents? Sooner or later, you will end up killing everybody. Nope. Let the world be the world. I want to make money
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2019 3:26:36 GMT
Because a) at that point in time he hasn't actually done anything atrocious, he just has some really dang iffy ideas that were fashionable among the edgelords of his time, and b) the people behind the rise of the Third Reich would just find some other frontman instead that you'd have to deal with further down the timeline, anyway. It'd be like trying to punch off Voltron's head before it has actually joined the gestalt and become the head of Voltron. EXACTLY my reason why I wouldn't monkey around with the killing Hitler scenarios. Because you take out one bad guy- wait until he is bad, or kill him as an infant and avoid it all? Kill his parents? Somebody else comes along and does a similar thing. Jim Jones. Pol Pot. Kill them also? Why not take out their parents? Sooner or later, you will end up killing everybody. Nope. Let the world be the world. I want to make money Do his mom
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Nov 26, 2019 4:16:44 GMT
EXACTLY my reason why I wouldn't monkey around with the killing Hitler scenarios. Because you take out one bad guy- wait until he is bad, or kill him as an infant and avoid it all? Kill his parents? Somebody else comes along and does a similar thing. Jim Jones. Pol Pot. Kill them also? Why not take out their parents? Sooner or later, you will end up killing everybody. Nope. Let the world be the world. I want to make money Do his mom Someone has been reading too much Heinlein.
|
|