The Philosophical Thread. Expand your Intelligence.

[V--own4g3--V]

I'm going to look into these, and I will post back later. Truly genius thread, I applaud your intellect.

 

[DarkSpark]

Time travel is pure speculation. No "theories" can logically be made... only the imaginative fiction of people's minds.
I have some ideas, but it's pointless. -_-

Indeed,

and as for people talking about the bending of light... there is a distinct difference between moving rays of light and molecular stuff

 

[d003r]

The longest recorded dream is 10 minutes, I can't believe it... such an eye-opener.

It is only possible to have one dream in a coma... My answer for this one is a simple one. When you dream you have an idea of who you are. If life was a dream, I believe at least some of us would realise who we were, what has happened in a past life. The scary thing is, some people do believe that they come from another person, in another place...

However somehow it seems too farfetched for me to buy into it, the fact the entire world is having the same dream at the same time, with people being born having to be the new dreamers? Too many drawbacks for me to consider it.

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

Time travel- what you have provided is just the reason why it would never happen. But if it was to happen, you would be in a different dimension, unable to speak to anyone, and no one would be able to speak to you; let alone see you.

And time travel wouldn't be through black holes. It would have to be through worm holes- a black hole connected to a white hole. A white hole is all the properties of a black whole reversed, but they don't physically exist. They only exist in mathematical functions. Besides, it would never work due to the fact that to get "into" a black hole, you would have to pass the horizon, which is where you will meet your doom due to the singularity.

Also, do you have any proof of the Eldridge?

 

[flipflop09999]

Cool theories, made me think twice....

That Coma thing is freaky....

 

[ryder721]

if time travel really does happen why is that if it where to happen they don't come back to our time and show us?

example. if time travel where to be mastered in 2015 and we are in 2007 why don't the people in 2015 come to 2007 and show us.

 

[Gekkostate]

if time travel really does happen why is that if it where to happen they don't come back to our time and show us?

example. if time travel where to be mastered in 2015 and we are in 2007 why don't the people in 2015 come to 2007 and show us.

If in the future time travel was possible then they probably don't travel back in time for fear of upsetting their current world, say they travel back in time and show us the method used for time travel, then that would mean time travel wasn't invented at a later time and it would affect how the past happened in their world and could ultimately blink them from existence. Unless of course by showing us how to travel it created a parrallel universe whereas things can be modified to the time traveller's specifications (ie. travelling to a certain time and killing a certain person so something does't happen). Then the only trouble would be to get back to the original dimension and time from which they came.

It can all be very confusing unless understood to a good extent.

Just look up Chaos Theory and The Grandfather Paradox to better understand ^.^

 

[paladen]

As far as time travel goes I don't believe it is possible.
In time travel you would have to achieve something that would be impossible. How can you infact invent a machine to make you go back into time? Although I would like to add in there is another possible creation that I do believe is possible. By collecting energy of an area into a machine of some sort you might be able to see the past, but not visit it.

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

Now that we have all agreed that time travel is virtually impossible, can we move onto a new philosophical topic?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Not getting into any sort of speculation on black holes, white holes, wormholes, or anything un-proven, there are still two ways humanity can time-travel.

1). We are moving through time at a rate of 1s/s. This constitutes traveling forward rather slowly (just a technicality).

2). If we get into a rocket ship, and blast around for a while at near-light speeds, we would effectively travel into the future. We could be gone for 10 years, yet when we returned to Earth, 100 years would have past.

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

Hey! That sounds like a good idea shredder! Just find me a rocket ship that flies at near light-speed.

You wouldn't travel INTO the future that way, you would simply be going all over the place. You don't travel into the future by going really fast in a vehicle...

Besides, I wanna see something go 186000 miles per hour.

 

[The Z]

Shredder is right with his rocket ship only i believe it was a 2 hour ride = 44 years or something along those lines. i am now trying to find a new subject just gimme a while to think

 

[Gekkostate]

Lol Shredder said he wouldn't get into anything that is pure speculation or unproven, and then he brings up a highly speculated concept such as travelling at near-light speeds to travel at a slower rate of time than everyone else, how is that proven?. First of all if you got into a rocket ship, even the smallest particles that came into contact with the ship would seriously just tear it apart and have devastating effects, only way around that would be to have a frictionless surface and some sort of Particle/Matter-Reppeling tecnhnology so lol seeing as we aren't even fathomingly close to that, gl with that idea.

 

[The Z]

my new matter, #3 is up it is a mix of Platos "the cave" and my thoughts on it

 

[Shredderbeam]

Lol Shredder said he wouldn't get into anything that is pure speculation or unproven, and then he brings up a highly speculated concept such as travelling at near-light speeds to travel at a slower rate of time than everyone else, how is that proven?.

Glad you asked. Two atomic clocks were taken, one was held in a laboratory, and the other was flown about in a high-speed jet. When compared, the one in the laboratory was ever so slightly ahead of the jet one.

First of all if you got into a rocket ship, even the smallest particles that came into contact with the ship would seriously just tear it apart and have devastating effects, only way around that would be to have a frictionless surface and some sort of Particle/Matter-Reppeling tecnhnology

I proposed a hypothetical scenario without giving thought to every little nuance of the idea. Must one entirely plan an expedition to Mars down the the most minute detail to propose it as a concept?

so lol seeing as we aren't even fathomingly close to that, gl with that idea.

Well, we ARE close enough that we can fathom it.

Also, ships that approach light-speed would realistically do so only in space, where there is a general absence of particles.

some sort of Particle/Matter-Reppeling tecnhnology

Oh, you mean like an electric field?

 

[The Z]

gekkosate were not saying we could do this now. but it has been tested. how? i do not know google it if you must but i know it has been proven

 

[The Supreme Intelligence]

Microwaves have been recorded to move at the speed of light. I know shredder will reply to this, I await his response.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Microwaves have been recorded to move at the speed of light. I know shredder will reply to this, I await his response.

Yes, they move at the speed of light (in a perfect vacuum). All you need to do is multiply the frequency of microwaves by the wavelength, which gets you the speed of light.

 

[Gekkostate]

Glad you asked. Two atomic clocks were taken, one was held in a laboratory, and the other was flown about in a high-speed jet. When compared, the one in the laboratory was ever so slightly ahead of the jet one.

Coming from a test whereas interference from the world around us affects everything and how it operates and that just by putting an Atomic Clock under a different set of Variables than it is usually used for it would probably affect it, so how can you compare such a low scale test to a concept such as time travel (which integrates a whole different set of variables).

I proposed a hypothetical scenario without giving thought to every little nuance of the idea. Must one entirely plan an expedition to Mars down the the most minute detail to propose it as a concept?

Lol anyone can propose a Hypothetical scenario without providing any of the dangers or risks involved. Just because it's hypothetical doesn't mean it's right or will ever come to be, so every minor detail in a Mars Expedition is void?, guess we shoulda just done something aimless like you propose.

Well, we ARE close enough that we can fathom it.

I guess Remotely Close can be considered close, seeing as it will be as close as we will ever come.

Also, ships that approach light-speed would realistically do so only in space, where there is a general absence of particles.

Again, another hypothetical situation, so i take it that travelling using a proposed electric field at the speed of light would completely negate objects such as asteroid belts and such? I highly doubt it. Also i doubt the human body would be able to withstand such trauma from navigating (dodging space rocks, if possible at all) at near-light speeds.

Oh, you mean like an electric field?

I highly doubt you could create an intense enough charge and maintain enough energy for the electric field to keep up with an object travelling near the speed of light, it would most likely leave a trail of an electric field in it's wake

 

[Shredderbeam]

Coming from a test whereas interference from the world around us affects everything and how it operates and that just by putting an Atomic Clock under a different set of Variables than it is usually used for it would probably affect it, so how can you compare such a low scale test to a concept such as time travel (which integrates a whole different set of variables).

I'm sure interference can affect the world around us, but it seems that the only difference between the two clocks was the speed at which they were moving.

Lol anyone can propose a Hypothetical scenario without providing any of the dangers or risks involved. Just because it's hypothetical doesn't mean it's right or will ever come to be, so every minor detail in a Mars Expedition is void?, guess we shoulda just done something aimless like you propose.

Again, it was a hypothetical proposal. If I suggest that we travel to Mars, I do not need to personally plan out every single detail of the trip in order for it to be considered. If it's decided that it's viable, then other people will plan all those details. I'm not particularly concerned with them.

I guess Remotely Close can be considered close, seeing as it will be as close as we will ever come.

Upon what basis do you state that?

Again, another hypothetical situation, so i take it that travelling using a proposed electric field at the speed of light would completely negate objects such as asteroid belts and such? I highly doubt it. Also i doubt the human body would be able to withstand such trauma from navigating (dodging space rocks, if possible at all) at near-light speeds.

First, asteroids in an asteroid field are one million plus miles apart. Second, they are generally located in small, concentrated areas in solar systems. Third, most people wouldn't try to fly through asteroid fields at near-light speeds.

I highly doubt you could create an intense enough charge and maintain enough energy for the electric field to keep up with an object travelling near the speed of light, it would most likely leave a trail of an electric field in it's wake

Listen, I'm not trying to propose this as a valid experiment. Are you capable of concieving of the idea of a hypothetical scenario? Disregarding such practical matters as energy storage, inertia, etc., please consider the scenario as it is intended to be considered.