The Museum of Hoaxes
Time Travel
Posted By:
Penny
Jun 29, 2004
 is this for real? i came across this site http://www.johntitor.com/ ,i'm not sure what to think about the guy that calls himself john titor..
Category: Time-Travel; Replies: 103

Comments
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
Matt
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 | 11:41 PM
Like many science fiction authors, it appears he's put a bit too much effort into the fiction and not enough into the science. His description of how the device works is somewhat vague, but it appears to use time dilation. This theory, unfortunately, is a one way mechanism. It explains how to slow down time, but not reverse it. You could travel into the future with a gravity based time machine, but not into the past. The text he wrote suggested he does not have much of any idea of how his device is supposed to opperate. If I were making up a story like that, I'd simply suggest it opperated on some unknown rule of physics and not bother trying to explain it using a law that is relatively well mapped out. He is pretty imaginitive. Still, the nut case who sent out all that spam looking for parts to repair his time machine was a lot funnier.
#1
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 | 05:45 PM
So, if time travel were possible, could I go to the time when the time machine was invented, and destroy it? What would happen? Hmmmmm...


"America. What a country!" - Yakov Smirnoff
parazyte
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 | 03:15 AM
Oh Penny! Please. No. You should be able to convince yourself that time travels aren't possible.
Bob K
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 | 05:21 PM
If time travel works as it was explianed last night on George Norry coast to coast., equipped with the time travel device, I could install it in a vehicle and travel into the past or future. okay I choose the Roman empire, just for some good old fashioned 21st Century sh*t disturbing

I would travel in a special armored Hummer called the Expanded capacity Vehicle (ECV). It has a larger payload capacity, and signifiant room for troops or weapons.
I would carry with me., 4 highly trained special forces soldiers &

AK 47's-20
Gil Anti Tank Guided Missiles-5
Colt M16's with lazer guideance-20
Rocket propelled grenades-10
Ammo & shells
Heckler & Koch MP-2013SD: 600e-a dozen
browning 9mm pistols -20
Browning 50 machine gun-5
IMI Shipon Rocket launcher
RAFAEL Gil Anti Tank Guided Missile-3
various misc weapons

Needless to say in about a week we would be in fucking charge of Europe. Who the hell would stop us..It would be fun to see the look in the eyes of those gladitor, mid evil mo fucks...oh and a case of trojans...the chicks had the clap
Bob K
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 | 07:17 PM
That should have read

Gil Anti Tank Guided Missile launchers-5
Colt M16's with lazer guideance-20
Rocket propelled grenade launchers-10

We'd bring down the Roman Empire in days...
they'd treat us like Gods after a few demonstrations
of the havoc we could cause. I'd also bring a dozen industrial strength I Pods loaded with everything from Johnny Cash to Led Zep and Hip Hop, Swing..make these primitive assholes listen to some tunes. oh and of course
all the modern meds I could get.
Rex D.
Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 | 07:12 PM
What would happen if you traveled back to before the big bang, or a point before time even began?
Charybdis
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 09:54 AM
Obviously, at a point when time didn't exist you wouldn't be able to travel through it. Think un-cooked hotdog vs. reinforced concrete wall. Splat.

The question is - Would you carry "time" back with you?

Of course, currently there are no answers to any of these questions. (and may never be)
Stephen
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 12:48 PM
The reason why John had to come to our time is because the internet runs slower in the future and he really had to get online. Just for an example, his time machine is plugged into the net(thats another story though) and it took him 4 months just to go back to his time.
Rex D.
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 | 04:53 PM
Time is only a point of reference, so I don't think it could come with you. either you cease to exist, or you get thrown back like a rubber band, but I doubt the latter. You know, the latest in quantum physics is that time doesn't even exist. It's merely a way to keep sane, like the valve effect. It's been theorized that if we could use 90-100% of our brain, we couldn't handle what we would experience and would instantaneously go insane, or possibly even braian death. Funky.
Charybdis
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 09:25 AM
I don't know about you Red D. but I use 90-100% of my brain. It may not be used efficiently but it's definately being used.

Or were you not referring to the "we only use 10% of our brains" BS?
Maegan
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 11:43 AM
Time deffinately exists. I don't mean in the sense that right now it's 11:40am...But that right now...it's NOW. We couldn't have now if we didn't have time. Also, I feel quite crazy knowing that I have about 10 hours total to finish my Christmas Shopping. If we have time to keep us sane, then it's not working.
Maegan
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 11:44 AM
...oh yeah, also, the world is in a constant entropy. If time was 'invented' then we wouldn't have to worry about entropy.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 01:04 PM
Time keeps on ticking, ticking, ticking into the future
Rex D.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 06:28 PM
Hey man, I never said time didn't exist, I said thats what the "experts" think. I am no expert, therefor believe time exists. Nor do I at all subscribe to the beliefe that we use approximately 10% of our own brains. Thats just poopoo. Doggystyle. (dogpoo you dirty, dirty person) If you look at EMRI slices, or 3D images, you'll see the whloe thing doing it'' own thing. You dig?
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 10:17 PM
Time travel is like standing in front of a mirror with another mirror behind you. If you bend to the side a bit, you can see image after image, all just a bit further away. If you approach the speed of light, you shrink a bit, and time slows down for you relative to other objects moving at a lesser speed. If we where able to move faster than light, which is theoretically impossible, we could overtake reflected light images from Earth. Therefore, if we passedhose images, and then turned and observed them, we would be looking back in time, much the same way that we look at light from stars many light years away, not the true current position of those stars. We can only observe.
Rex D.
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 | 10:21 PM
Sounds like fun. Lets do it!
Rex D.
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 | 03:45 AM
I am currently watching the science channel and theres something on about time travel. They are saying if we could go faster than the speed of light, we would travel backwards in time. Now how in the $@%# does that work? When you go faster, you simply go faster, right? I guess not.
Charybdis
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 | 11:02 AM
As you accellerate time slows down. At the speed of light time stops (and mass becomes infinite, but that's another story). Faster than that would mean time goes backwards. It's one of the reasons that nothing is supposed to travel faster than the speed of light or even, technically, exactly at lightspeed. Except photons, of course. And maybe massless tachyons. It gets complicated and I'm no physicist.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 | 01:28 PM
All this was covered in my thesis on the previous page. I don't want to have to explain it again. Pop quiz.
Rex D.
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 | 02:24 PM
I understand the concept, I just think it's stupid that when traveling fast-as-light, you can't go faster, instead sort of change direction. I was looking forward to cruising beyond C. Might as well scrap the plans for my LightRider.
kaliman_69
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 | 12:01 PM
Time travel is theoretically possible, however not physically possible. Let me explain, if you are familiar with Einstein's theory of relativity, you know that if two twins are born, one left on earth, and one sent into space to orbit the earth at a faster pace than the earth is rotating, when the twin returns, say in 24 years, the twin returning from space will be considerably younger. This is because time and space are relative, therefore if you are going faster than the revolving planet, you are going to surpass the time limit of 60sec/1min.

consider this second alternative. If it was phyisically possible for mass to travel at 99.9996% the speed of light, and you could build a spaceship out of some wonderful material that would be able to take you in a straight line at this constant speed for a duration of 12 years to reach a place, turn around and at the same constant speed return to earth, according to the mathematical calcualtions of Dr Richard Gott, you would come back to roughly 1000 years ahead of time. again time and space are relative. This is possible theoretically, mathematically proven. Phisically, it is not possible. at least not yet.
the third alternative for all you skeptics and hoax believers lies in the sky. the stars you see at night are glimpses and snapshots happening billions of years ago. light travels at a constant 186,000,000miles/s. that means that, if the sun were to be turned off, it would take aprox. 8 minutes for us to notice.
this is not BS. this is science. or for the religiously inclined, heresy. until now there is nothing to prove that time travel can be done to travel backwards into time. no magnetic capacitors, or gravitational deregulators, or flying De Lorean's can accomplish this feat. It is all balognia.
To all those would be time travelers, pick up a copy of J. Richard Gott's Time Travel in Einstein's Universe. Good read and can be found at your local library in the physics section. not the fiction one. I hope someone will read this and somehow will become more enlightened.
Cheers, IM
JoeSixpack
Member
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 | 12:31 PM
kaliman_69 incorrectly stated:

"and one sent into space to orbit the earth at a faster pace than the earth is rotating, when the twin returns, say in 24 years, the twin returning from space will be considerably younger. This is because time and space are relative, therefore if you are going faster than the revolving planet, you are going to surpass the time limit of 60sec/1min."

Time dilation has absoloutly NOTHING to do with rotational velocity of the earth. See this link;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation.

I hope you will read this and somehow will become enlightened.
kaliman_69
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 | 02:11 PM
Alright. It was an example, nevertheless the concept of my post reamins, time travel is not physically possible. only theoretically possible. I had heard of the twin theory some time ago, so I forgot some things, does this make John Titor's story valid? no. It only makes my story (a second hand account) somewhat invalid.
I still don't know if joesixpack is defending titor or simply wanted to prove me wrong.
I was vague when I wrote "I hope someone will read this and become enlightened."

By "it" I meant the book I was refering to. I would hope you are not searching for enlightnenment from internet posts.
JoeSixpack
Member
Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2005 | 11:11 PM
kaliman-69, John Titor is obviously a hoax. I was just pointing out you misunderstanding about time dilation. The "somehow become enlightened" crack was just to jerk your chain.
Michio Kaku
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 07:24 AM
Time travel IS allowed, even by the equations of general relativity. Within those equations, however , it would require a rotating universe. (postulated by Godel) And we do not live in one.

Other methods involving heavy rotating objects COULD drag space-time around enough to make a viable machine. But you would only ever be able to travel back in time to the point at which the machine started to function.

A more viable solution is to create a worm hole.
The main problem (apart from the initial energy required which would be immense.), would be that a form of matter containing 'negative' energy would be required, to prevent the wormhole from collapsing immediately.

This was considered a stopper for years, until astro-physicists discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is actually INCREASING.
This must almost certainly be caused by the presence of matter with the very qualities need to keep a worm hole from collapsing. ie - negative energy, gravity that instead of attracting, repels.

Since then, There is nothing in the laws of physics to prevent a time machine from being made.

Whether mankind can ever harness the necessary energy to do so is another matter.

One idea is to use the energy created by the super giant black holes found at the centre of many galaxies. But we have to get there first of course.

So I wouldnt hold your breath.!!!!!!
Michio Kaku
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 07:29 AM
We should also note, that at a particle level, time travel COULD be said to be commonplace. Mathematically speaking, a positron IS an electron travelling backward in time.

The direction of time itself is still a mystery.
and predicated on the laws of thermodynamics.
Laws which have never been proved, in any sense whatsoever.

We COULD all be living our lives backwards, from death till birth. But we think not, simply because we remember the future, and have no memory of the past. Thats just something fun to think about though, not meant to be taken seriously.

I could talk for years on this, so I'll shut up instead.
X
in McKinney, TX
 Member
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 07:49 AM
I would believe to jumping into another demention of reality before I would believe in time travel. If time travel truley existed, I have a hard time believing life, itself, would be real, because how would life ever complete itself; Your life, my life, it would mean we would never die. (You have to REALLY analyze that last statement) Think about it.

Now, if a person managed to do a portal jump into another reality, another "Alternate" demention of himself to change something, when he got there, it would be different, and any changes one would make would have "NO" effect in this reality.

If a person does manage by some chance to go back into time, I believe he would be somewhat of a ghost, an illusion, wouldn't be real in that time because he truly never existed, and all one would be able to do is "watch".
JoeSixpack
Member
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 08:58 AM
First off, let me state for the record that I'm not a physicist. BUT, Michio Kaku said:

"Mathematically speaking, a positron IS an electron travelling backward in time"

I'm not sure I agree with that. From what I've read about antimatter, positrons are EXACTLY opposite in charge from electrons (i.e., are just as positively charged as electrons are negative), but differ in mass. It seems that this difference would mean that they are not the same particles moving through time differently.

And secondly, it seems to me that if something were traveling backwards in time we would see it only for the instant that it existed sumultaniously with us. We would be unable to observe it for any length of time.

I could be wrong, this is just my thinking on it.

emit ni kcab levart t'nac uoY
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 10:12 AM
I traveled backwards yesterday & met someone traveling forward - now I have to replace my tail light.
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 12:05 PM
Funny Maegan, 😊

What kills me is how Kaliman_69 and a couple of others on here speak so definitively about what is and what isn't. Newsflash for you kaliman, Einstein didn't create the universe and therefore like most of us, theorizes about it. Do you understand that word or the fact that MOST of his work is just that..."Theories." Not proven in any physical sense... just theories that will remain un-testable (and therefore remain theories) for at least some period of time. Not that I'm trying to downplay his contributions in the slightest... but just because he theorized something doesn't make it so. Others just as great have been wrong, or only partially right, and his word shouldn't be taken for "gospel" so to speak. You mentioned the religously motivated and how their views were somewhat skewed by their beliefs (or something to that effect) but fail to notice that your views might be just as skewed by your own beliefs (Church of Einstein).
Just a thought... not that I know anything. My opinion is that time is nothing more than a point of reference made up by man to help him understand an increasingly complicated world. (Much like the concept of God) As the world became more understood by mankind they needed a reference to help them understand the concepts of past, present, and future. You will never be able to capture time, bottle or observe it, because it exists but doesn't.!?.???? Call me whacked as I'm sure you will... but don't forget they used to think Albert was a little crocked himself at first. 😉
My point being that Kaliman_69 and others like him who speak and dismiss so definitively on subjects they've only read theories about, should take a cue from JoeSixpack about how to have meaningful discussion. You can intelligently discuss a subject, be informed about current theories and beliefs, but yet still be open enough to know that NO ONE has the absolute answers on the subject, yet anyways. Therefore any question, or thought, deserves at least to be asked and addressed with dignity... otherwise how will anyone learn? How will you sway them to your side if you're just as close-minded as they are, just for the other side?
X
in McKinney, TX
 Member
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 12:39 PM
YEAH!!!! What he said!
JoeSixpack
Member
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 01:04 PM
!gnihtyna dear t'nac I won ,tihs hO ...!AAAHEEY !emit ni sdrawkcab gnilevart ma I !!!ti did I
Kat
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 | 05:09 PM
Oooh, is that the Michio Kaku? The physicist? If so, I've heard of you 😉

-Kat
matzusdog
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 09:52 AM
how on EARTH can something be theoretically possible but not physically possible?

The whole point of Faster than light time travel is not, in fact travelling in time. The concept is simple, but little understood. If you could travel faster than light, you could see things that happened before their event horizon. this would be impossible according to Einsteins model of the universe, however if you think of all the things you can see, if you could see something that happened 12 million years ago (like a supernova) you could shoot the light of an event (say the comet that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago) out into space for 32 and a half million years, off a giant mirror (our time travel device), then you could 'see' that event in real time here 32 and a half million years later.

So in the physical sense you are not 'travelling' in time, but merely experiencing your environment over a greater time scale.

Now, I've just read that back and it made NO sense. but I know what I mean.

Anyway, as 'Time' is relative you cannot travel in it. or around it. you can observe it, it can change direction or speed up and slow down, but only ever relative to yourself.

If Time and Space are linked in the way suggested by many eminent Physicysts, a large mass such as a black hole or star can distort space, and therefore the relative time scale. But even then, you cannot alter the time scale of a different mass or area of space, only the area you are currently using as your frame of reference.

<wipes brow> phew.
X
in McKinney, TX
 Member
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 10:39 AM
I with matzusdog, and what you wrote did make sense!! You can't be in it but observe it.

This is what I said, kinda similar:
If a person does manage by some chance to go back into time, I believe he would be somewhat of a ghost, an illusion, wouldn't be real in that time because he truly never existed, and all one would be able to do is "watch".
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 12:13 PM
Exactly, you can "observe" the past by this reflection... but it would still be the past. The "point of reference" would still be the present right? That's why I think that traveling faster than light will one day be possible, and that when doing so it won't "transport" you back in time. Yes, you could turn around and observe the light from Earth, from the past, but it would still be the present on Earth as it is to you. Just because the "light" from the present would take an additional 10 years (or whatever) to reach you doesn't change the fact that everyone's (yours and on Earth) "present" point of reference is the same. Just because you're observing the light from 10 years ago on Earth doesn't in fact make it "10 years ago on Earth." Know what I mean? HUH??? Whatever, I'm getting a headache. 😊
JoeSixpack
Member
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 01:15 PM
I have invented a machine that will allow me to travel backwards in time. I will try it out this afternoon and will post my success (or failure) on this very thread.

Wish me luck
X
in McKinney, TX
 Member
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 01:26 PM
What Joe didn't mention was that very machine is also used in the production of LSD. GOOD LUCK JOE!!!
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 04:28 PM
Stephen,
Do you mean LSD or DSL? 😊 They are two completely different things and depending on whether you're traveling forwards or backwards you could be expecting one thing and get quite another. 😉
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 | 05:02 PM
I knew this named Tempus Fugit, who came from the year 2525. He said that in the future they choose leaders based on the size of their endowments, or however much money they contribute, whichever is bigger.
Matzusdog
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 | 07:08 AM
I was thinking about it another way. If you could travel faster than light, you could set up an experiment where you let off a nuclear explosion in space, fly off faster than light and wait and view it, then after viewing it you could fly off faster than light and view it again etc...HOWEVER.... as regards faster than light travel, the laws of physics (which I believe a previous poster has described as unproven? Like to see him unprove entropy, or to make a grenade out of shrapnel and energy. anyway I digress...)
the laws of physics state that to move a mass you need to apply an amount of energy greater than the total mass of the object. To accelerate a mass you need to apply a constant or increasing amount of energy. As far as I can tell, to increase speed when you are approaching light speed, the mass of the object at that speed will increase proportionally to the amount of energy input (a result of E = mC squared), so you can never reach the speed of light unless you have a zero mass. Or you are a wave. hmmm.

So faster than light travel is theoretically (and ergo physically) impossible in this universe.

As to moving through time itself, I like to refer to a diagram I saw when I was a student.

a 0-Dimensional creature (a dot) lives in a 1-Dimensional universe ( a line). its position on the line can be thought of as its length. explain a cube to a 0 dimensional creature, and it would not understand - except to see a cube as a series of 0-dimensional objects living a life (the width of a cube) parallel to other 0-dimensional objects but never meeting them (a square) whilst each object has another parallel object which exists but cannot be referenced.

now for you and me it is simple to explain a cube - we live in 3 dimensions and use the 4th dimension to give us a past and future - for example I can describe my position in space as a 4 dimensional reference to a point (say the north pole) - distance longtitude, distance latitude, height above sea level and time I am there.

In this sense we should be able to 'travel' through all of these references, so 'if' you found a way to skip into a parallel universe and move backwards and then skip back in to this one, you could be on a winner.

theoretically.

Lol.
mike
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 | 02:35 PM
<snip>That's why I think that traveling faster than light will one day be possible,</snip>

Short answer: no.

Long(er) answer:

E = \gamma mc^2,

where \gamma = 1/\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}, which I'm sure all of you know. Something I would like to quickly point out is that the above equation is where the "concept" of "relativistic mass" comes from. Incidentally, no physicist worth his salt utilizes the concept since it doesn't really make any sense. More logical is to just remember the above formula as it's written (it's easy, total energy = rest mass energy * scale factor, where the scale factor is \gamma). Lumping the \gamma with the mass is silly and will break intuition later.

Why is it impossible to have v > c? Simply, there is a first order pole in the energy at v = c, and if you go past that the energy is imaginary. Just to reach c requires infinite energy. Photons (and all null particles) get around this because they have zero rest mass (see? I told you "relativistic mass" would get you into trouble).

Until you find a rigorous way around the above problem I don't really understand the point in pondering faster-than-light travel. You can't properly analyze the implications until you have a working theory of how it occurs in the first place (which none of you clearly has). I <em>could</em> philosiphically approach the question of what would happen if I had a 10 foot bullet-proof shlong but it wouldn't be very useful, now would it?
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 | 03:22 PM
Ok then, explain why the expansion of the universe is not only still happening but increasing...and don't even spout "Dark Energy" as it's totally unproven in any way. This link shows a theory of how acceleration can increase without the influx of additional energy. (I think, in a round about sort of way)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark_energy_050228.html

Or how about this, which I'm not stating is absolutely the facts but seem to be garnering some attention from the scientific world outside of MOH...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/faster_than_c_000719.html

Einstein would have probably thought that even waves (?) could never break the light speed barrier but now maybe they can by a factor of 300!

You can spout all the equations you like, you still haven't accelerated anything to light speed thereby PROVING that it's mass would increase when doing so. Nor have you ever attempted to accelerate a mass to light speed thereby PROVING how much energy is required. My point is that all your proof of it's never happening is nothing more than equations provided to you, by someone else, who themselves only theoretically proved them.

Go back in history and ask the smartest guy from 1,000 years ago if you could circumnavigate the world on a sailing ship.

Go back 500 years and check local beliefs on whether or not mankind could fly.

Go back 200 years and find out if the public thought it possible for man to go to the moon.

My point is that we as a species don't know nearly everything there is to know, and only comprehend probably half of what we do know.

You can't say for certain what will happen tomorrow (future) based on what we know from yesterday and today (past and present) because you never know what you'll find out tonight (time between now and then)
Myst
Member
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 | 08:38 PM
Oh my, I just got a major headache thinking about all of that! I think I will just stay at normal speed. 😖
B
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 | 01:17 AM
Wow! Reading all the posts on this one topic took a long time! Where'd you guys from? Princeton? Harvard? NASA? You guys need to start a think-tank! I hope you guys aren't just lurkers with just a basic high-school knowledge! Because if you are I need to go back to school! Of course, I'm addressing: kaliman_69, Michio Kaku, and Matzusdog. I'm not certain about Hairy Houdini, but he seems intelligent.

As for the following
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 | 01:52 AM
:gulp:
"I'm not certain about Hairy Houdini, but he seems intelligent." - B
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 | 07:05 AM
Anyone who thinks that Hairy makes sense really has a screw loose. Kinda makes me glad he didn't appreciate my comments. By his logic I must have been relevent and coherent. 😉
matzusdog
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 09:47 AM
... you know it still makes me mad, anytime you use science as an answer for anything, some ignoramus comes up with the '1000 years ago scientist thought the world was flat' la de da excuse all the time.

Ancient Greeks knew the world was round. So did Christopher Columbus. Pretty much anyone who could go up a mountain could tell you the earth is round.

Google 'flat earth myth' and see what you cmoe up with.

I would ask people who are believers in things that science cannot explain to just hold their tongues next time they are tempted to say 'people thought the world was flat', 'they said mankind couldn't fly', 'they told Marconi radio was a phoney', 'man couldn't go into space' etc...

The only people who say things like that are ignorant people who want to appear intelligent by saying 'it can never be done'.

Scientist say things like 'how could we overcome <i>this</i> obstacle in order to acheive <i>this</i> task?'



Every step in human achievment has been built on the back of visionaries and scientists. When people talk about limits of modern day science, they aren't talking about thinking the world is made of air earth fire and water - they are talking about particles that exist for fractions of a millisecond, dimensions that only exist in mathematical equations, and things beyond the scope of the average layman.

Science is the limit of our knowledge, not the beginning of our ignorance.
X
in McKinney, TX
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 09:55 AM
Well said Matzudog, see that people, PASSION!!!!
X
in McKinney, TX
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 11:18 AM
Also, John Titor has nothing on me....For those of you that have not read my story, go to http://www.sphinx1976.blogspot.com . That should be proof enough.
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 01:33 PM
OK since Matzusdog is back on topic now and seems to be doggin my statement I have to say this...

When you said, "The only people who say things like that are ignorant people who want to appear intelligent by saying 'it can never be done'.

Scientist say things like 'how could we overcome this obstacle in order to acheive this task?"

I would just like to point out that although I spouted that "1,000 years ago" crap it was to make the point that we "shouldn't" ABSOLUTELY rule out something (breaking C speed barrier) prematurely. To reiterate what I, and what you said above...Scientist say things like 'how could we overcome this obstacle in order to acheive this task?

I just think that we shouldn't definitively rule ANYTHING out because of reasons like... every major step taken by science ever. So Mat I'm not exactly sure why using those points to say that "possibly" someday we might break the light speed barrier (C) makes me an ignoramus?

But I'm sure you'll tell me right?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 02:01 PM
While we should never rule any theory completely out, we also shouldn't be prepared to dump everything we believe just on somebody's say so. Radical new theories require REAL evidence before they should be taken seriously.

While certainly not perfect, and sometimes even contradictory, our current understanding of how the universe works is the best we have. And right now time travel, as most people understand the concept, is not possible under the framework we have for the universe. (I know about worm holes, but those are EXTREMELY exotic and would require an incredible output of effort and energy to create and control, assuming it's even possible. This is not how most people claim to have traveled through time.)

Any new theory that supports time travel would also have to encompass and even replace all the other theories which have been working so well to date. That's a pretty big job, and so far nobody's managed to do it. Until they can come up with a comprehensive new theory, I'll just consider all these "time travelers" to be crackpots. I'm more than willing to be persuaded, but it will take verifiable and reproducible evidence to do so.
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 02:16 PM
Just to clarify...

I don't think time travel will ever be done...

I do however believe it's possible that we might someday break barrier (C)

I totally get what you're saying about excepting new theories w/out proper evidence... but just like I don't take everything a new theory might state for absolute knowledge... neither do I take everything Einstein ever spat out as absolute knowledge either...

You shouldn't be too close-minded "either" way was the point I was trying to make in this thread.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 02:44 PM
And in the words of David Byrne "Time isn't after us, time isn't holding us"

Ok, that had nothing to do with anything but I wanted to contribute and had nothing intelligent to add.
X
in McKinney, TX
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 02:53 PM
At least you tried!!!!
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 03:04 PM
And in support of my beliefs...

Time keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping... Into the future - The Steve Miller Band
:coolsmile:
matzusdog
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 04:55 PM
Mark n Jen -

Apologies, I thought that line sounded a little vague when I wrote it but I was tired and angry - I was not calling you ignorant, rather those people who actually <i>said at the time</i> 'oh, man will never fly'.

I appreciate your points, but the argument that because ignorant people said things in the past, that if a scientist tells you something cannot be done now he/she is not doing the same thing. it jsut isn't a valid argument, because the things we are discussing (time travel/faster than light etc) are beyond the mathematical possibilites.

And the maths is all we have - I have read that a chap in greece c600BC calculated the circumference of the earth measuring the height of a stick at noon every day and walking east for many miles, using trig.

He was pretty close too - my point being that I believe if you explained to him the concept and physics of a moon landing, he would say 'yes - the maths is possible, so i would say it is possible'.



The 'people thought the earth was flat' myth is a real bug bear of mine so I just had to get that off my chest.
matzusdog
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 | 05:13 PM
..apologies again for the double post, but you really <i>really</i> can't travel faster than light. the same way as if you tip a glass of water it doesn't fly upwards. Its not a matter of just getting over the 'hurdle' of light speed, it's not like two blokes stood in a field pushing a rusty bicycle and wondering how to make it fly - it's just not possible, even in Charyb's exotic worm hole space, you may very well be able to move between dimensions and travel great distances in a short time, but there is nstill ot enough energy in the universe to accelerate a mass to light speed. even near light speed. if we lived in a universe could sustain masses travelling at light speed, there would be no universe because of all the collisions releasing more energy than previously existed... oooh my head hurts now as well!

it's like entanglement - all very well saying that a particle can have duality and exist across a great distance - the maths shows it is possible, science has experimented and shown some signs that it is possible, but it doesn't mean Troy bearman dude is building a matter transporter - it's just not going to happen.

not on my watch.

for a 3 dimensional creature living in a 4 dimensional world based on some simple physical laws, i'm sorry but there is no way to go any faster than the speed of light.



so anyway me and me greek chum from 2600 years ago sit down and talk about it, and he says 'yes, you crazy peeps innit you cannot go faster zan light speed y'see? chilli sauce on that kebab mate?'
dfstuckey
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 | 04:52 AM
But if you can travel instantaneously from Point A to Point B, then you could get the effect of travelling at FTL velocity even if you don't actaully travel. Which does not invalidate any current physics.

Back to time travel - For the ultimate resolution ( so Far) of time paradox, check out the story "The Men Who Murdered Mohammed" by Alfred Bester. You will like it I think.
Myst
Member
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 | 05:46 PM
Michio Kaku said: One idea is to use the energy created by the super giant black holes found at the centre of many galaxies. But we have to get there first of course.

It appears that scientists may be getting closer than we thought.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm"> Lab fireball 'may be black hole'</a>
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.