Is Traveling Back In Time Possible?

[The Cat]

String theory proves that the further from the ground you are, the faster time travels.
It's all to do with gravity; like mass being 0 at the speed of light; so time flows faster the faster you go because you're going so fast in relation to Earth, everything on Earth is at a stand still.

The sun travels 500, 000mph through space, Earth travels around the sun at 67, 000mph - So even when you're stationary, you're not.

Doesnt string theory only theorize at this point? I'm not being sarcastic, I seriously don't know, and well it's like called a theory. I get the whole moving all the time. I can feel it when I'm drunk, or really tired. And the plane thingie makes sense because of relative speed and something to do with lines or baseballs, if I'm remembering my sciences classes right. You take into account the curvature of the earth and the speed of the object... Is that right? In some ways I think time is a commonly help belief, time zones are crazy, but I'm the last person to make a good argument towards time, I dont even wear a watch. But thank you for sharing, [MENTION=15790]ilikeitlikethat[/MENTION], your science stuff is interesting.

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

Indeed, I've jogged up and down an aeroplane flying over the Atlantic at 590mph going East to West.
I wonder what (if any) the difference is doing that in an aeroplane flying West to East?
Flights are slightly quicker going East because your destination is moving towards the aeroplane.

Now technically the faster you're travelling, the faster through time you're travelling.
If you're on an express train doing, IDK, 90mph, and you're a passenger on board.
Then when you look out the window from this train, you're looking at the past (on a quantum level).

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

That is time, but what shape is space?

We can't bend space. Can we?
Even a singularity 1 point in a network of space, is more than light speed or time. Such gravity in a space so small do exist and can pull in light matter into it's point in space space, so gravity must be the key from going from one space and speed and relativity and direction of space to another.
Do black holes move?

 

[The Cat]

That is time, but what shape is space?

We can't bend space. Can we?

I like to think anything is possible. ^_^ and thank you so much for that video, I'll have to watch it a few times before I know if I understand it, neat thread you guys!

 

[Norrsken]

I wish we could travel back in time but in a way that we are safely enclosed in a crystallized box that will protect us and the people in said time period from seeing or touching each other. Sort of like watching a movie, but you are taking a passive role in being able to walk around and observe the world around you without directly interacting with it to prevent the butterfly effect.

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

Ooh, this is all so interesting! *starry eyes*

*raises hand* question, question! So supposing you couldn't go back in time and interfere with stuff because of parallel universes, would you still be able to go back in time to scenes of crimes and stuff so as to see who really murdered the person, and then come back to your own time to report your findings so justice could be served, or would that also be interfering?

 

[The Cat]

Ooh, this is all so interesting! *starry eyes*

*raises hand* question, question! So supposing you couldn't go back in time and interfere with stuff because of parallel universes, would you still be able to go back in time to scenes of crimes and stuff so as to see who really murdered the person, and then come back to your own time to report your findings so justice could be served, or would that also be interfering?

No. No.. no... well, maybe, well a bit. But I mean c'mon what's the point of going in you can't have a little fun along the way. I'd say this more than qualifies as non interference, as you're only observing, you dont actually start to interfere until the present-- which is how all interference is done for everybody. Theough technically if you traveled to the past, it would still be the present to you at the time so from a non linear non subjective point...hmm, got away from me. But I like where your hearts are at.

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

Travelling sideways through time.
2016 on Mars with people going by different names right and it's probably called some completely different year and in 2016, Mars hadn't blown themselves up and they never came to Earth.

A Martian year's 687 Earth days, or 22.5 Earth months.
I want to see measuring of clocks on Mars & on Earth to see how long they're ticking due to the planets masses being different from one another and string theory's gravitational at the speeds of time in time space.
NASA sent things to Mars, right? Rovers, satellites, IDK... So aren't there any time keeping devices on them being effected by being on Mars too as the gravitational effects operating in that time space relative to Mars, compared to ours.

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

No. No.. no... well, maybe, well a bit. But I mean c'mon what's the point of going in you can't have a little fun along the way. I'd say this more than qualifies as non interference, as you're only observing, you dont actually start to interfere until the present-- which is how all interference is done for everybody. Theough technically if you traveled to the past, it would still be the present to you at the time so from a non linear non subjective point...hmm, got away from me. But I like where your hearts are at.

Oh yes, that makes sense. So maybe if you traveled to the past, what you could do would be limited by what you knew was going to happen like in The Angels Take Manhattan. So like, you couldn't go off and kill Hitler to stop WWII because you know that WWII happens, but you could go make friends with person X because you have no idea of person X's future.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Oh yes, that makes sense. So maybe if you traveled to the past, what you could do would be limited by what you knew was going to happen like in The Angels Take Manhattan. So like, you couldn't go off and kill Hitler to stop WWII because you know that WWII happens, but you could go make friends with person X because you have no idea of person X's future.

Couldn't you by that logic using a loophole in this rule indirectly lead to events occurring. For instance say you know Hitler is coming and you could say for instance divert the traffic while he was in his car to lead him off a cliff as opposed to killing him directly. Anyway i think the world would be a far different one without WW2. Less advanced in many ways due to the war boosting advance by 20-30 years in a short space of time which has massive implications. This timeline is in fact covered by Command and Conquer with Stalin being the new evil guy.

Just because you think you are doing a good thing doesn't mean that it will be good in the long run. Say for instance to save someone from being run over you jump at them and causing the person behind you to scream distracting all the drivers all around you and causing say 30 dead as opposed to just 1. . I know the good Doctor has had to made some sacrifices to benefit things in the long run. As we speak there may very well be people from the future walking among us but i think we are probably at the front of the queue if that makes sense.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Traveling sideways in time fascinates me more [MENTION=15790]ilikeitlikethat[/MENTION]


I don't think time travel backwards is possible in the conventional Back to the Future sense

 

[Lord Lavender]

Traveling sideways in time

Does that mean instead of travelling back or forwards in time you just hop to another timeline. I visualize time as being like a bunch of lines all branching out from one line showing the big bang. Think like a frayed rope starting off thick with as time goes on with more possibilities they start to diverge.(Millions of them with possibly some containing foolish time travelers who went back in time and say killed the ape that would bring rise to humanity or introduced their diseases to the past and are now in a timeline where humans do not exist on Earth, others where the dinosaurs never died out and now have a galactic empire. Basically this is a real cool idea as setting the date for say 22/13/10 but with different timelines could yield different results.

Thinking about it are we are the front of the shopping queue as logically if there was a "future" ahead of us wouldn't they have invented time travel already and sent some people back or perhaps there is some terrible side effect of time travel that we dont know off . My worse nightmare is that the space in between time if i am making sense is like that film the Event Horizon (Scary creepy film).

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Does that mean instead of travelling back or forwards in time you just hop to another timeline. I visualize time as being like a bunch of lines all branching out from one line showing the big bang. Think like a frayed rope starting off thick with as time goes on with more possibilities they start to diverge.(Millions of them with possibly some containing foolish time travelers who went back in time and say killed the ape that would bring rise to humanity or introduced their diseases to the past and are now in a timeline where humans do not exist on Earth, others where the dinosaurs never died out and now have a galactic empire. Basically this is a real cool idea as setting the date for say 22/13/10 but with different timelines could yield different results.

Thinking about it are we are the front of the shopping queue as logically if there was a "future" ahead of us wouldn't they have invented time travel already and sent some people back or perhaps there is some terrible side effect of time travel that we dont know off . My worse nightmare is that the space in between time if i am making sense is like that film the Event Horizon (Scary creepy film).

Do you think those "lines" ever intersect? I wonder what sort of effect that might have..


And regarding potential time tourists from the future, my guess is if they were advanced enough to develop that technology, they'd also be able to mask their presence well when visiting the past. They might know better than to tamper with the timeline but if they were tampering it's not like we would know because any changes would be experienced and perceived by us as part of our normal timeline

 

[Lord Lavender]

Do you think those "lines" ever intersect? I wonder what sort of effect that might have..

Actually they do to some extent anyway. The Mandala effect is an interesting phenomena in which people purport to have memories of many things that did not occur. I know people dont always remember things correctly (I quite often have mini-mandala effects in which i swear I hadn't stolen the last doughnut but everyone else remembers me taking the last doughnut ) but i believe in it as if masses of people all purport the same thing then it is a possibility. Its named after Mandala himself as many people claim that they have memories of him dying in prison in the 1980s even though officially he died just a few years ago. The universe to me has some damage control mechanism that prevents the timelines from tangling into one another but like the body cannot always prevent genetic mutations the universe also cannot always stop timelines inter tangling and therefore we have the Mandala effect. One disturbing possibility is that as the universe ages it will have more and more of those interlinings leading to some really surreal timelines like as people get older they are more likely to have health problems as the damage control mechanism starts wearing away.

 

[ilikeitlikethat]

What shape is time space?

It's funny how gravity is round.
Pulling everything to a single point from all directions, like a ball, covered from every direction in space. Or a globe.

Maybe space isn't flat? Maybe space is round?
If we go long enough in one direction, we'd end up back where we started from?

So over distance, string theory and time dilation can intertwine heading in both directions in relation from one far off point to another?

 

[Lord Lavender]

What shape is time space?

It's funny how gravity is round.
Pulling everything to a single point from all directions, like a ball, covered from every direction in space. Or a globe.

Maybe space isn't flat? Maybe space is round?
If we go long enough in one direction, we'd end up back where we started from?

Speaking of shapes and gravity this is interesting. Most things in the universe are round spheres or at least roundish. So far we have not seen a planet shaped like a cube or a pyarmid or even a flat plane a la Disc world. I was watching this video below about the theory behind the minecraft world and it turns out that a cube planet would have some really odd gravity properties. Below is the video in question on how a cube planet would look like (I recommend Game theory as they are fun).

I think that space may very well have some odd shapes to it. The traditional method is to see it as being one big vast nothingness which it basically is but many models have been proposed. Your model of the universe being round isnt a bad one as this fits with the Big Bang expanding outwards plus as you said gravity has a inclination to lump things together into snowballs. It is strange that many things from atoms to stars are spheres so there is a pattern there .

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

Couldn't you by that logic using a loophole in this rule indirectly lead to events occurring. For instance say you know Hitler is coming and you could say for instance divert the traffic while he was in his car to lead him off a cliff as opposed to killing him directly. Anyway i think the world would be a far different one without WW2. Less advanced in many ways due to the war boosting advance by 20-30 years in a short space of time which has massive implications. This timeline is in fact covered by Command and Conquer with Stalin being the new evil guy.

Just because you think you are doing a good thing doesn't mean that it will be good in the long run. Say for instance to save someone from being run over you jump at them and causing the person behind you to scream distracting all the drivers all around you and causing say 30 dead as opposed to just 1. . I know the good Doctor has had to made some sacrifices to benefit things in the long run. As we speak there may very well be people from the future walking among us but i think we are probably at the front of the queue if that makes sense.

Well the idea in The Angels Take Manhattan from Doctor Who is that as soon as you know something from the future is going to happen, it is written into your timeline, and now it has to happen otherwise there will be a paradox and stuff will go boom. So if you went back in time to pre-WWII times, according to this hypothesis (which very well might be incorrect), if you stopped Hitler from rising to power through any means, you would create a paradox because the reason you stopped him is because you're from the future where Hitler /did/ rise to power. The trick to cheating the system is to take advantage of vagueness. So you could totally go back in time and set up rescue missions for Jews who you had never heard of, and then your actions would just become a natural part of the timeline. The only way I can think of that Hitler could be killed by a time traveler without creating a paradox is through a time traveler who knew absolutely nothing about Hitler, and killed him. The time traveler's actions would then become a natural part of events, and history would be rewritten without anyone knowing.

Well to determine whether or not stopping world war 2 is moral, assuming that you wouldn't create a dastardly paradox, you'd have to determine how many lives the technological advances made because of ww2 saved (as in like, developments in science relating to weaponry crossed over to the medical world, bringing on the invention vaccines against rampant infectious diseases), figure out how many years the discoveries made because of ww2 were ahead of their time, and then multiply the years by the deaths that could have been prevented if the technology due to world war 2 had been in place, doing adjustments to make up for anything that would have been developed if ww2 hadn't happened, any natural lapses in disease and the like, and probably a bunch of other variables I can't think of right now because I'm hungry and should go eat breakfast. Anyways, if the lives saved by WW2s technological advances and other things such as the creation of the UN was greater than 50 - 80 million, and the injuries prevented were more than the injuries caused by WW2 (idk that number) then stopping WWII would be immoral according to utilitarian ethics.

And what is the likelihood that someone screaming causes enough car accidents to kill 30 people?

 

[Lord Lavender]

Well the idea in The Angels Take Manhattan from Doctor Who is that as soon as you know something from the future is going to happen, it is written into your timeline, and now it has to happen otherwise there will be a paradox and stuff will go boom. So if you went back in time to pre-WWII times, according to this hypothesis (which very well might be incorrect), if you stopped Hitler from rising to power through any means, you would create a paradox because the reason you stopped him is because you're from the future where Hitler /did/ rise to power. The trick to cheating the system is to take advantage of vagueness. So you could totally go back in time and set up rescue missions for Jews who you had never heard of, and then your actions would just become a natural part of the timeline. The only way I can think of that Hitler could be killed by a time traveler without creating a paradox is through a time traveler who knew absolutely nothing about Hitler, and killed him. The time traveler's actions would then become a natural part of events, and history would be rewritten without anyone knowing.

Well to determine whether or not stopping world war 2 is moral, assuming that you wouldn't create a dastardly paradox, you'd have to determine how many lives the technological advances made because of ww2 saved (as in like, developments in science relating to weaponry crossed over to the medical world, bringing on the invention vaccines against rampant infectious diseases), figure out how many years the discoveries made because of ww2 were ahead of their time, and then multiply the years by the deaths that could have been prevented if the technology due to world war 2 had been in place, doing adjustments to make up for anything that would have been developed if ww2 hadn't happened, any natural lapses in disease and the like, and probably a bunch of other variables I can't think of right now because I'm hungry and should go eat breakfast. Anyways, if the lives saved by WW2s technological advances and other things such as the creation of the UN was greater than 50 - 80 million, and the injuries prevented were more than the injuries caused by WW2 (idk that number) then stopping WWII would be immoral according to utilitarian ethics.

And what is the likelihood that someone screaming causes enough car accidents to kill 30 people?

Interesting discussion of ethics here. I can be quite cold with my utilitarian ethics at times as i think that WW2 in the long run may have made the world better due to technological advances in medience,military hardware which drips down to more domestic uses e.t.c.. On a tangent stopping WW1 would mean that aviation takes a big hit in terms of advancement. Plus after WW2 we all know that nuclear bombs are far more dangerous than they appear to be due to the after effects. The screaming can easily cause 30 people to die as think in a crowded street if one person crashes it can all snowball into a bigger accident due to others swerving, breaking suddenly e.t.c. Say the scream distracts one driver and then they have an accident. (Maybe 30 is a bit extreme but you could easily have a dozen or so cars crashing).

 

[thepink-cloakedninja]

Interesting discussion of ethics here. I can be quite cold with my utilitarian ethics at times as i think that WW2 in the long run may have made the world better due to technological advances in medience,military hardware which drips down to more domestic uses e.t.c.. On a tangent stopping WW1 would mean that aviation takes a big hit in terms of advancement. Plus after WW2 we all know that nuclear bombs are far more dangerous than they appear to be due to the after effects. The screaming can easily cause 30 people to die as think in a crowded street if one person crashes it can all snowball into a bigger accident due to others swerving, breaking suddenly e.t.c. Say the scream distracts one driver and then they have an accident. (Maybe 30 is a bit extreme but you could easily have a dozen or so cars crashing).

I think that the problem is that our definitions of making the world better differ. I seem to be measuring better by lives and quality of life in a health and injury-free sense, and you seem to be measuring better by scientific advancements, am I wrong? And that is definitely true about the nuclear bomb! I'm sure that *ahem* educated people would have figured out a close estimation of the after effects of nuclear bombs, but the *ahem* unwashed masses may have been more eager to let loose one of those bad boys if they had never seen a nuclear bomb in action before. So hypothetically, WW2 could have stopped the world from being destroyed by people who don't think through the gravity of their actions, first (and there seem to be quite a few of those in power, lately).

Well in order for such a large crash to happen, the street would have to be quite full, and so everyone would be going at a pretty slow speed, so it would be extremely unlikely that any of the car crashes would cause a death to anyone inside the vehicles. And darn, I couldn't find any statistics for the average amount of cars involved in a given car crash, but I've never personally seen any bigger than three cars. The value of one life saved for certain outweighs any potential car crashes (and I still think that a scream distracting a driver enough to cause a car crash is pretty small), and certainly outweighs the even smaller likelihood of that car crash causing more crashes, and the small likelihood that anyone in the cars will die.

 

[Lord Lavender]

I think that the problem is that our definitions of making the world better differ. I seem to be measuring better by lives and quality of life in a health and injury-free sense, and you seem to be measuring better by scientific advancements, am I wrong? And that is definitely true about the nuclear bomb! I'm sure that *ahem* educated people would have figured out a close estimation of the after effects of nuclear bombs, but the *ahem* unwashed masses may have been more eager to let loose one of those bad boys if they had never seen a nuclear bomb in action before. So hypothetically, WW2 could have stopped the world from being destroyed by people who don't think through the gravity of their actions, first (and there seem to be quite a few of those in power, lately).

Well in order for such a large crash to happen, the street would have to be quite full, and so everyone would be going at a pretty slow speed, so it would be extremely unlikely that any of the car crashes would cause a death to anyone inside the vehicles. And darn, I couldn't find any statistics for the average amount of cars involved in a given car crash, but I've never personally seen any bigger than three cars. The value of one life saved for certain outweighs any potential car crashes (and I still think that a scream distracting a driver enough to cause a car crash is pretty small), and certainly outweighs the even smaller likelihood of that car crash causing more crashes, and the small likelihood that anyone in the cars will die.

We do have very different ethical systems . After all without scientific advancement we wouldn't be having this conversation, enjoying the marvels of the internet and you wouldn't get to watch Doctor Who . True about there being many people who think that the best solution to a problem is to nuclear bomb the hell out of stuff. I am the type of person who if they ended up in power may make some morally suspect choices in order to advance more while you seem one who doesn't want any war or violence to occur. "Educated people" can be really evil at times though as you can see with all the eugenics and Nazi stuff during WW2. I think that in another timeline where WW2 never happened there are many possible versions of 14/12/2016. Say the one we are living in is 123d for simpilicy sake. Say you hop sideways to timeline 123e you may enter a nuclear wasteland a la Fallout and in 123c you may encounter a Utopian world. All this talk is reminding me of Rick and Morty (Basically a cross between Doctor Who and Family Guy). Its awesome and you should give it a go.