Post deleted by User.
Time Travel
Time travel
tl;dr 8 pages
There was some show on Discovery where Steven Hawking was talking about time travel. It's theoretically possible to travel into the future, but time travel to the past it would be impossible.
I don't remember the whole thing, but it was something like we'd have to build a train that would circumnavigate the Earth at the speed of light and basically time inside the train would slow down in comparison to time outside.
There was some show on Discovery where Steven Hawking was talking about time travel. It's theoretically possible to travel into the future, but time travel to the past it would be impossible.
I don't remember the whole thing, but it was something like we'd have to build a train that would circumnavigate the Earth at the speed of light and basically time inside the train would slow down in comparison to time outside.
D:
I loved your old one.
Kujata.Akeda said:
tl;dr 8 pages
There was some show on Discovery where Steven Hawking was talking about time travel. It's theoretically possible to travel into the future, but time travel to the past it would be impossible.
I don't remember the whole thing, but it was something like we'd have to build a train that would circumnavigate the Earth at the speed of light and basically time inside the train would slow down in comparison to time outside.
There was some show on Discovery where Steven Hawking was talking about time travel. It's theoretically possible to travel into the future, but time travel to the past it would be impossible.
I don't remember the whole thing, but it was something like we'd have to build a train that would circumnavigate the Earth at the speed of light and basically time inside the train would slow down in comparison to time outside.
Leviathan.Chaosx said:
Lakshmi.Jaerik said:
Alexander.Haruku said:
My question is what are you're thoughts on it do think it can be done?
Backwards time travel probably isn't likely. Unless you believe in a universe-wide conspiracy theory, someone from the future would have already come back and told us.
Quote:
"Down at the smallest of scales, smaller even than molecules, smaller than atoms, we get to a place called the quantum foam. This is where wormholes exist. Tiny tunnels or shortcuts through space and time constantly form, disappear, and reform within this quantum world. And they actually link two separate places and two different times."
The tunnels, unfortunately, are far too small for people to pass through -- just a billion-trillion-trillionths of a centimeter -- but physicists believe it may be possible to catch a wormhole and make it big enough for people, or spaceships, to enter, Hawking writes.
"Theoretically, a time tunnel or wormhole could do even more than take us to other planets. If both ends were in the same place, and separated by time instead of distance, a ship could fly in and come out still near Earth, but in the distant past. Maybe dinosaurs would witness the ship coming in for a landing," Hawking writes.
The tunnels, unfortunately, are far too small for people to pass through -- just a billion-trillion-trillionths of a centimeter -- but physicists believe it may be possible to catch a wormhole and make it big enough for people, or spaceships, to enter, Hawking writes.
"Theoretically, a time tunnel or wormhole could do even more than take us to other planets. If both ends were in the same place, and separated by time instead of distance, a ship could fly in and come out still near Earth, but in the distant past. Maybe dinosaurs would witness the ship coming in for a landing," Hawking writes.
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
For time to exist there would need to be two things: oxygen and gravity.
The forces that control decay.
The forces that control decay.
This is not true. You are describing time as a very human thing when it is an interval of events. Time exists in the absence of every element as it is an interval of occurance. Gravity exists always and everywhere.
This is going to sound horribly condescending and I don't mean it anywhere near as badly as it sounds but I can't think of another way of doing it, but do you have a scientific background? I'm pretty bad at Physics despite studying it but ... I dunno, hard to describe. It's like we're not really connecting on things like what gravitation is.
Bahamut.Raenryong said:
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
For time to exist there would need to be two things: oxygen and gravity.
The forces that control decay.
The forces that control decay.
This is not true. You are describing time as a very human thing when it is an interval of events. Time exists in the absence of every element as it is an interval of occurance. Gravity exists always and everywhere.
This is going to sound horribly condescending and I don't mean it anywhere near as badly as it sounds but I can't think of another way of doing it, but do you have a scientific background? I'm pretty bad at Physics despite studying it but ... I dunno, hard to describe. It's like we're not really connecting on things like what gravitation is.
As time itself, it is non existent. The 4th dimension is considered time as we know it, but well I'm not going to even try to explain it right now. Google it, read up on it. It's really hard to explain atm. lol.
As for gravity, I'm really spouting ***here, but as I remember Einstein tried to disprove its existence right before he died.
This thread hurts my brain. You know its bad when you're trying to monitor anesthesia and you cant because you're too busy trying to contemplate time as we know it.
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
Mechanical Engineering that I never finished but going back this summer to continue lol <_>
I do agree with what you're saying with the relative theories for Earthly aspects, but in the universe they do not apply because there is no form of decay and without decay there is no such thing as time.
I do agree with what you're saying with the relative theories for Earthly aspects, but in the universe they do not apply because there is no form of decay and without decay there is no such thing as time.
:P
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
the universe is indefinite with no gravity so a center and a end is impossible because gravity is consistent with distance and mass.
We don't know how vast the universe is, we only know what ourselves and the closest galaxies look like.
For all we know, our little cluster of galaxies are just less than a hundredth of a percent of this universe.
Thats all I have to say, that and that sober sucks.
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
To simplify it let's take satellites that are orbiting Earth, has been any form of decay on them?
Nope 8)
Nope 8)
sure we can make an educated guess.
but it's a guess none-the-less.
orbiting space=/=whole universe IMO.
i just wonder how that big ball of fire in the sky works.
>.>
<.<
tl;dr ***'s still a lot more complicated than we even know when it comes to the great beyond IMO.
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
The universe is consistent lol.
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
That subjectivity card got old a while back lol, try debating with some intellect instead of trying to prove everything wrong.
I'll just block ya and be done with it if you'd like since anything I say is just subjective BS.
[+]
There's nothing wrong with trying to prove something "wrong". The process of elimination and a finite number of answers to a question makes for an alternative method of understanding what is "right".
Nah that's just subjective BS, there is only one right answer.
[+]
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
I never said you're wrong lol, I did however say the way you present yourself is wrong.
Also, I don't take anything I see in front of me as BS as that would imply there is no reasoning behind what I am reading and why I should read it.
Also, I don't take anything I see in front of me as BS as that would imply there is no reasoning behind what I am reading and why I should read it.
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
Ramuh.Vinvv said:
Nah that's just subjective BS, there is only one right answer.
If you remember I said the correct way to fix something is an unlimited amount of ways, so saying there is only one right answer means you are closed-minded 8|
I will note that I italicized that for sarcastic purposes, but that's just because I can't understand what you are talking about since I am incapable of intellectual debate.
Lakshmi.Mabrook said:
You either take me too seriously or not seriously enough.
I'm a consistently inconsistent person, so it makes sense anyway.
Or maybe I'm a inconsistent consistent person.
I can't really say for sure.
If you're inconsistently consistent you're a living testament to logical fallacies.
Luz said:
If you're inconsistently consistent you're a living testament to logical fallacies.
[+]
String Theory. look it up !
Valefor.Lluna said:
String Theory. look it up !
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.