TIME TRAVEL

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />But the photons emitted by those objects can be stored in a blackhole. <br /><br />BHs, are cosmic hard drives? Nah, I don't think so.</font><br />Ok, here's what I should have said: "But the photons emitted by those objects can be stored in a blackhole<i> until they lose all their energy.</i><br /><br />The photons emitted by an object near a blackhole are stored in the black hole for two reasons:<br /><br />1. They never leave the black hole.<br /><br />2. They are infinitly red shifted (lose energy) and appear<br /> frozen in their paths, from an observers eye near the <br /> event horizon. Red shifting = time shifting (from the <br /> present).<br /><font color="yellow"><br />I much rather believe that the energy & matter that crosses the event horizon winds up being converted back to some kind of fundamental energy at the singularity.</font><br /><br />Photons may never reach the singularity, before losing all their energy (by redshifting). And then they're gone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

<font color="yellow">They are infinitly red shifted (lose energy) and appear frozen in their paths, from an observers eye near the event horizon.</font><br /><br />Doesn't infinite redshifting equal energyless light? The photons wouldn't "appear" frozen, we wouldn't see them cause of the total absence of energy in a infinite redshift.<br /><br />

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Doesn't infinite redshifting equal energyless light? The photons wouldn't "appear" frozen, we wouldn't see them cause of the total absence of energy in a infinite redshift. </font><br /><br />That is the difference between what is actually happening (the photon is gone, it's wave length has flat-lined) and what appears to be happening from a distance (the photon is frozen in it's path, because time has stopped). Black holes used to be known as frozen stars, according to alokmohan, on this board, at SDC.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[mrcurious]

<font color="yellow">That is the difference between what is actually happening (the photon is gone, it's wave length has flat-lined) and what appears to be happening from a distance (the photon is frozen in it's path, because time has stopped). </font><br /><br />Regardless of what "appears" & "actually" happening, the effect of an infinite redshift would prevent the photon from emitting any kind of light because it has no energy. Granted, the theory is that the observer of a black hole would see objects frozen in time once that object crossed the event horizon, which is the effect of the infinite redshift. In the case of a photon, once it made the journey, it would infinite redshift, lose all its energy causing it to become invisible.....because if it didn't become invisible then a black hole wouldn't remain black.<br /><br />Even if, the light were visible & frozen. The gravitational force on that photon, I would think, wouldn't allow it to be frozen for long......not long enough to look back in time.<br /><br />So if thats not the case, then I need to question the BH......because things don't make sense....How can something have no energy, but still give the observer a clear image of what just went in there.

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Even if, the light were visible & frozen. The gravitational force on that photon, I would think, wouldn't allow it to be frozen for long......not long enough to look back in time. <br /><br />So if thats not the case, then I need to question the BH......because things don't make sense....How can something have no energy, but still give the observer a clear image of what just went in there. </font><br /><br />You have to step back and look at the larger picture. What you said is true for a single photon emitted by an object near a black hole. What about all the billions-trillions of photons emitted by the object? They're in intermediate states of becomming redshifted. And they're constantly being replenished by the surrounding light. Granted, the picture of the object may not be crystal clear, but it should be visible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[lukman]

There is no time travel, we cant go back. We are conditioned in our life to see things in 3D, in our daily live we see more Newton physic law than quantum law. We always thing that what goes up must goes down, all must have begin and end, there are always reason, cause and reaction. We have been conditioned to think that way, so, that we think time is a dimension that we can go forth and backward. Maybe in a subatomic level, we play with space and time, but remember, we live in a different dimension. What is happenning in quantum world will less likely be applicable to normal life. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dfrank]

There is only on point in time and that is NOW. Distance can change your ability to see NOW in another location. It may take it a while to get to your NOW. You can see in the past, but you can not go there. No matter when you get there it will just be NOW.<br /><br />The future has not happened anywhere. You can not go to a place that does not exist. Time is just the current or past state of what ever process, geological, biological or astronomical relative to you or location.<br /><br />Past perception can be altered by forces of gravity and distance. It is just perception. It could be wrong. Be careful when you look back into the past.<br /><br />Dfrank<br />

 

[dfrank]

I am going with Albert on this one. It is all relative. <br /><br />To equate frequencies as colors and hues demonstrates an understanding of sensual perception. Taking it a step further, you can not see or hear a vibration that has not occurred. That vibration in what ever medium is just a result of a process, a reaction to something on the space time continuum. .<br /><br />Then again I think the big bang is a gross oversimplification.<br /><br />Dfrank <br /><br /><br />

 

[vandivx]

how refreshing view on the subject, thx<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The future has not happened anywhere. You can not go to a place that does not exist.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />the future would have to happen 'here' and where would NOW be displaced to make place for it? same for past<br /><br />only NOW exists and the past or future exist no longer or not yet <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

The first indication that the laws of physics might really allow people to travel in time came in 1949 when Kurt<br />Godel discovered a new space-time allowed by general relativity. Godel was a mathematician who was famous<br />for proving that it is impossible to prove all true statements, even if you limit yourself to trying to prove all the<br />true statements in a subject as apparently cut and dried as arithmetic. Like the uncertainty principle, Godel’s<br />incompleteness theorem may be a fundamental limitation on our ability to understand and predict the universe,<br />but so far at least it hasn’t seemed to be an obstacle in our search for a complete unified theory.<br />Godel got to know about general relativity when he and Einstein spent their later years at the Institute for<br />Advanced Study in Princeton. His space-time had the curious property that the whole universe was rotating.<br />One might ask: “Rotating with respect to what?†The answer is that distant matter would be rotating with<br />respect to directions that little tops or gyroscopes point in.<br />This had the side effect that it would be possible for someone to go off in a rocket ship and return to earth<br />before he set out. This property really upset Einstein, who had thought that general relativity wouldn’t allow time<br />travel. However, given Einstein’s record of ill-founded opposition to gravitational collapse and the uncertainty<br />principle, maybe this was an encouraging sign. The solution Godel found doesn’t correspond to the universe<br />we live in because we can show that the universe is not rotating. It also had a non-zero value of the<br />cosmological constant that Einstein introduced when he thought the universe was unchanging. After Hubble<br />discovered the expansion of the universe, there was no need for a cosmological constant and it is now<br />generally believed to be zero. However, other more reasonable space-times that are allowed by general<br />relativity and

 

[alokmohan]

Godel shows the way.

 

[alokmohan]

Time travel is possible.Permitted by general theory of relativity.

 

[derekmcd]

Thermodynamics says 'no'... it's not possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Thermodynamis says no, is it correct?Is it related to themodynamics?

 

[nexium]

The thinking goes something like this: The time travelers body occupies perhaps 0.3 cubic meter and stores perhaps one kilowatt hour of heat. When he departs for another time, he leave vacuum for the space he was occupying and we lost the kilowatt hour of heat. Arriving time travelers produce heat and matter gain. Perhaps this is why the Delorian arrived covered with frost in some scenes of "Back To The Future" Neil

 

[agnau]

Wouldn't the laws of entropy also disallow time travel, not just thermodynamics.<br /><br />Past-Travel would be fighting against entropy and so far, I've not seen a significant device capable of doing that.

 

[alokmohan]

nexium please help out.

 

[alokmohan]

Time travel gives rise to matricide paradox.If you go back in time you kill your mother back in time before you are born.So you cannot come back to us.

 

[derekmcd]

Entropy is associated with the 2nd law in that a closed system will always increase it's entropy. Much like the flow of time always going forward. Not sure you can really associate with time travel, though.<br /><br />I was referring to the 1st law in that matter can not be created or destroyed (energy is a closed system will always remain constant). Traveling to the past would add matter/energy to that system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> Time travel gives rise to matricide paradox.If you go back in time you kill your mother back in time before you are born.So you cannot come back to us. </font><br /><br />In other words, you're talking about the grandfather paradox?<br /><br />There are theories that are ways of getting around the grandfather paradox. One is the idea of multiple, parallel universes. When you leave this universe in your time machine, you leave this universe and enter a parallel universe. In the parallel universe you can easily kill your grandfather and it will have no affects on you because you are of a different timeline. However, the YOU in that universe will no longer exist.<br /><br />Or, you might also be able to rely on Quantum Theory for finding ways around the grandfather paradox. One idea that Quantum Theory states is that if you are 100% sure that your grandfather is alive and healthy when you hop in your time machine, it will be impossible to kill him in the past. Something, or some force will stop you from doing so. Of course, the paradox doesn't assume that you have to kill him, it also states that you only have to prevent him from meeting your grandmother so that they never give birth to you father/mother. But then again, if you are positive that your grandparents are alive and happily married today, it will be impossible to go back and prevent them from getting married.<br /><br />Of course all this nonsense has to rely on your time machine in the first place. Whatever that machine may be, if it is man-made and there was a point in time when it didn't exist, then it should be impossible for you to travel back to a point in time in which the time machine didn't exist yet.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

That was the Zetas speaking though you, just like they speak though Nancy. Don't get swelled headed as the Zetas often put a dishonest spin on their "facts" <br />About once per year Art Bell has time travelers call in the show and be interviewed. Some of them are quite convincing even with Art asking questions that are difficult without actually being from the past or future. Neil

 

[MeteorWayne]

Wow, long time since I heard of the Zeta's and Nancy.<br /><br />Brings back memories..... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Nexium ,it goes over my HEAD.Zeta and all those things.

 

[nexium]

You can ask the Zetas questions of almost any kind and they speak though Nancy, by chaneling. Some would say she is a medium. Some of the answers are quite complex, but Nancy speaks quickly. Most observers think Nancy and the time travelers are smart enough to give mostly good answers/ the Zetas and time travelers are fake. The Zata's claim they live in the Pleides star group. If you ask in Phenomonum someone can likely give more details. Neil

 

[jgreimer]

Let me be the devil's advocate and present the other side though I'm not a believer in this hypothesis.<br /><br />Space and time can no longer be thought of as separate entities but must be thought of together as space-time. Mathematically at least, time and space are interchangeabe. Then just as events exist in space at various distances they must also exist in time, not only in the present but in the past and future also. <br /><br />My problem with this idea is this. Consider the simple act of driving a car, well perhaps not so simple. Think of all the things the driver must react to in the process - the position of the lines on the road relative to the car, the other cars especially if one is a police car, the signs, the speedometer, pedestrians, intersections and stoplights and on and on. Driving a car is far from a random process. Having all one's driving reactions preprogrammed into space-time such that driving a car constitutes a purposeful act, would require that whatever created the space-time continuum understood the mechanics of driving a car. And no, I'm not a creationist.