Board index › Off Topic Discussion › Random Discussion

Possible Time-Traveler?

Page 6 of 14 [ 211 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Aug 2008, 1:46 pm

greenblue wrote:
pat666rick wrote:
Pointless thread. No offense.

well, if you were a time travel geek, then it wouldn't ;)


Time-travel + history + diachronic linguistics + chemistry geek to be exact.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

14 Aug 2008, 2:24 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
pat666rick wrote:
Pointless thread. No offense.

well, if you were a time travel geek, then it wouldn't ;)


Time-travel + history + diachronic linguistics + chemistry geek to be exact.

Interesting, I suppose you might be an expert in those areas :)


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Aug 2008, 2:33 pm

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
pat666rick wrote:
Pointless thread. No offense.

well, if you were a time travel geek, then it wouldn't ;)


Time-travel + history + diachronic linguistics + chemistry geek to be exact.

Interesting, I suppose you might be an expert in those areas :)


No paper to show, but these are some of the subjects I have studied the most, particularly chemistry. I don't know anyone who's an "expert" in time-travel. The energy-induced singularity guy you linked to would be the closest I have heard of though.



Followthereaper90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,780
Location: finland

14 Aug 2008, 2:39 pm

Aalto wrote:
If you orbit the earth the opposite way to which it is turning, faster than it takes to perform a whole rotation (a day), then essentially you go back in time. Or so I remember. I guess time is created as a human convenience and in fact, physics allow us to overlap it when possible. Currently I can't see how I could previously comprehend that but hey, it is 3am.
can u go faster? :P and even u do will u chance too?


_________________
followthereaper until its time to make a turn,
followthereaper until point of no return-children of bodom-follow the reaper


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

14 Aug 2008, 2:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Aalto wrote:
If you orbit the earth the opposite way to which it is turning, faster than it takes to perform a whole rotation (a day), then essentially you go back in time. Or so I remember. I guess time is created as a human convenience and in fact, physics allow us to overlap it when possible. Currently I can't see how I could previously comprehend that but hey, it is 3am.


The relative direction is irrelevant. You go fast enough and you will slow your passage through time with respect to a "stationary" observer.

Nonsense. If spacetime is flat, I'm stationary, he's moving, and his time is slowed down. 8O

And I don't speed up for anyone. ;)


_________________
* here for the nachos.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Aug 2008, 2:53 pm

twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Aalto wrote:
If you orbit the earth the opposite way to which it is turning, faster than it takes to perform a whole rotation (a day), then essentially you go back in time. Or so I remember. I guess time is created as a human convenience and in fact, physics allow us to overlap it when possible. Currently I can't see how I could previously comprehend that but hey, it is 3am.


The relative direction is irrelevant. You go fast enough and you will slow your passage through time with respect to a "stationary" observer.

Nonsense. If spacetime is flat, I'm stationary, he's moving, and his time is slowed down. 8O

And I don't speed up for anyone. ;)


The earth moves, the solar system moves, etc. In PHYSICS you deal with relative motion and reference frames constantly.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

14 Aug 2008, 3:06 pm

Followthereaper90 wrote:
Aalto wrote:
If you orbit the earth the opposite way to which it is turning, faster than it takes to perform a whole rotation (a day), then essentially you go back in time. Or so I remember. I guess time is created as a human convenience and in fact, physics allow us to overlap it when possible. Currently I can't see how I could previously comprehend that but hey, it is 3am.
can u go faster? :P and even u do will u chance too?

Well, only Superman could do it and it worked for him ;)


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

14 Aug 2008, 3:06 pm

iamnotaparakeet:
Indeed, but in a Minkowskian spacetime (which admittedly the area around the earth isn't...) there is no preferred inertial reference frame, which leaves us in that awkward situation where we both measure the other's time to be slowed down...


_________________
* here for the nachos.


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

14 Aug 2008, 3:17 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
twoshots wrote:
Nonsense. If spacetime is flat, I'm stationary, he's moving, and his time is slowed down. 8O

And I don't speed up for anyone. ;)

AFAIK spacetime is flat, but in limited velocities and limited gravity, but when any of those increases greatly then spacetime is curved. In which case, if a spacecraft orbits around the earth in incredible speed, certainly it won't put backwards the movement of the earth, as superman did :P but, the austronaut would live longer than us, from our point of view.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

14 Aug 2008, 3:24 pm

twoshots wrote:
iamnotaparakeet:
Indeed, but in a Minkowskian spacetime (which admittedly the area around the earth isn't...) there is no preferred inertial reference frame, which leaves us in that awkward situation where we both measure the other's time to be slowed down...

well, we both would measure the speed of light to be exactly the same according to the special relativity thoery, which is a constant, no matter how, this seems to be the point of reference on how one would measure the other.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

14 Aug 2008, 3:26 pm

I was just goofing around with the counterintuitiveness of the relativity of inertial reference frames, because people like to say that if you go fast your time slows down but provided your not accelerating at all you would measure the time loss for everything else (SR on the brain lately). In the original situation, yes, I *think* it would work out to a net time loss.

But AFAIK the Minkowskian metric applies to all SR situations, so it's still flat even if you're moving really fast.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:      

14 Aug 2008, 3:36 pm

Aalto wrote:
If you orbit the earth the opposite way to which it is turning, faster than it takes to perform a whole rotation (a day), then essentially you go back in time. Or so I remember. I guess time is created as a human convenience and in fact, physics allow us to overlap it when possible. Currently I can't see how I could previously comprehend that but hey, it is 3am.

The direction of an orbit has nothing to do with a object's direction of passage through time, unless you happen to be a comic-book superhero.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

14 Aug 2008, 3:50 pm

twoshots wrote:
I was just goofing around with the counterintuitiveness of the relativity of inertial reference frames, because people like to say that if you go fast your time slows down but provided your not accelerating at all you would measure the time loss for everything else (SR on the brain lately). In the original situation, yes, I *think* it would work out to a net time loss.

But AFAIK the Minkowskian metric applies to all SR situations, so it's still flat even if you're moving really fast.

Minkowskian space seems to be used as a reference to all SR, well, surely I am very very far to even consider feeling like an expert on this or to fully understand it for that matter. I think your point is that, while for the observer spacetime is seem flat in their current state, the spacetime would be curved to the other person that is travelling fast, according to the observer's point of view, from the traveller's point of view, his spacetime is flat and the observer's spacetime is curved, but I'm not sure of both curvatures seeming the same from one point of view to the other, for both, something sure is that they both would measure the speed of light exactly the same.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Last edited by greenblue on 14 Aug 2008, 3:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:      

14 Aug 2008, 3:52 pm

pat666rick wrote:
Time traveling isn't in the bible so therefore it's blasphemy. It's for sinners IMO. Same as computers, but I still use them. I sort of regret using any high-technology.

Whatever is not mentioned in the Bible (computers, gunpowder, anticoagulants, et cetera) is not blasphemous, but if you use them wrongly (porn, warfare, murder, et cetera) then you've committed a sin.

Look at it this way: YOU were not mentioned in the Bible ... does that make your very existance blasphemous and an abomination before your God, or do you have some special way of second-guessing His will that allows you dispensation?


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:      

14 Aug 2008, 3:54 pm

pat666rick wrote:
God doesn't like anything that isn't mentioned in the Bible.

YOU are not mentioned in the Bible.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Last edited by Fnord on 14 Aug 2008, 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

14 Aug 2008, 3:55 pm

Fnord wrote:
pat666rick wrote:
God doesn't like anything that isn't mentioned in the Bible.

YOU are not mentioned in the Bible.

Exactly :P


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?