The first time machine? 51 replies

Please wait...

Flash525

The Carbon Comrade

50 XP

14th July 2004

0 Uploads

15,103 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago
The debut in early summer could provide a landmark because travelling into the past is only possible - if it is possible at all - as far back as the point of creation of the first time machine.

Assuming you are saying that we can only go back in time (if at all) - If a few people from 2008 travelled back to say... the year 100, then how would they go about getting back? Personally, whilst Time Travel may be a fascinating subject, quite frankly, it scares me. In theory, the moment you go back in time, the future would ultimatly change (because you aren't suppose to be there, at that point in time) - Cause & Effect. If you cause a change in time, then you (without knowing it) will Effect the future, right? One person could go back in time tomorrow, and erase the future for the rest of us.




The Fat Controller

the renegade codpiece emulator

50 XP

7th September 2006

0 Uploads

483 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

If the LHC acted like a time machine, the 'wormholes' it would create would be on a subatomic level, like the article says. The people of the future would have to have some pretty nifty technology to exploit that. In any case, I don't think we'll be seeing Dr Who's Tardis anytime soon :rolleyes:




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,931 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,511 Posts

38 Threads

#3 10 years ago

Time is hard to understand. In theory, it's very possible. It's just how in the world is it supposed to be carried out? If someone from the future travels here, wouldn't they somehow cancel out their future, and create a new one by their actions in our "past"?

But the fact they change the past, wouldn't that somehow create a paradox? Eek, i think it's only possible to change our future, not our present. But that doesn't stop us from going to the future, bring back information and technology, and thus advance further than in the future. :uhoh:




Zipacna

Re-heally?

50 XP

11th January 2008

0 Uploads

4,209 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago

We know exactly two factors that can influence time: gravitation (so: mass) and speed of movement. Fact is, the bigger the mass or the higher the speed is, the slower is the flow of time. The problem is: Time is just an effect we notice, on the basic energy-level, something like time does not exist. The theory often is that, if you move something faster than light, the object/subject travels back in time. But when you think about it, you'll find out it doesn't work: when you want to go faster than the speed of light, there is one point where you would have to move at the speed of light for a moment... but since time is practically non-existant for light because it gets stretched until infinity, you can't pass that point because, when you've passed it, you're literally at the end of time... and even if, that would mean the following: The faster you move, the faster (from your perspective) happen the things around you. This means, when you travel at the speed of light, you prctically don't move while everything around you happens in one moment. This again means that, when you're going faster than light, you would go back in YOUR time, meaning you would get younger... and everything around you would happen FASTER than infinitely fast... Tell me if I got away from the topic of the thread, will you?


[center]sigpic191442_14.jpg "I'm an amateur policeman and leisure time surgeon." Sounds insane? Welcome to the pain of historians and archaeolog



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 10 years ago

If they could go back in time they shouldn't because if one teensy little thing is out of place, it could throw everything off imagine someone accidently kill a lamb, and that lamb was going to feed a farmer when he was starving, so he dies of starvation. And he never has kids because he's dead, you've just damned people to nonexistance




Zipacna

Re-heally?

50 XP

11th January 2008

0 Uploads

4,209 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago
nanobot_swarm;4352291If they could go back in time they shouldn't because if one teensy little thing is out of place, it could throw everything off imagine someone accidently kill a lamb, and that lamb was going to feed a farmer when he was starving, so he dies of starvation. And he never has kids because he's dead, you've just damned people to nonexistance

Imagine you COULD go back in time... and didn't change anything. If you look at how many things in history depended on accidents or decisions made in fragments of a second... those persons just would have to decide otherwise to change history completely...


[center]sigpic191442_14.jpg "I'm an amateur policeman and leisure time surgeon." Sounds insane? Welcome to the pain of historians and archaeolog



judgeking

Odyssey CO

50 XP

21st October 2006

0 Uploads

205 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

Anyways, time travel is completely safe because it doesn't affect our timeline, it only creates a new time line. Ours is unaffected.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 10 years ago
Tycoon;4351965Assuming you are saying that we can only go back in time (if at all) - If a few people from 2008 travelled back to say... the year 100, then how would they go about getting back?

Well, depending on the size, you could send a copy of the time machine in question back with you, or depending on the tech even travel with the machine (DeLorean-like). My personal belief when it comes to the whole time travel thing is that there is some form of predetermination. Basically, yeah you can try to change things but invariably something else will happen to make things right again. For example, you save your grandfather from being shot on the Somme or something, but then he courtmarshalled as a deserter and shot anyway, or even more puzzlingly, you do something you think has changed things, but it turns out all that happened was that things turned out exactly as they were anyway. (Anyone who has seen Series 2 of Life on Mars will know what I mean)




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,931 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,511 Posts

38 Threads

#9 10 years ago
nanobot_swarm;4352291If they could go back in time they shouldn't because if one teensy little thing is out of place, it could throw everything off imagine someone accidently kill a lamb, and that lamb was going to feed a farmer when he was starving, so he dies of starvation. And he never has kids because he's dead, you've just damned people to nonexistance

You cannot go past year zero, that would mean you would basically create some sort of a temporal paradox. If i had a time machine, and lived in say... 2065, i would only be able to travel back to 2008, and not further. But by doing that, i would bring technology and information that 2008 doesn't have yet. Eeeeh. That was very confusing, right?

There's also a theory that major events(World War 2, etc) are "fixed" in time, so that they cannot be changed. You could kill Hitler, but he would just be suceeded by another person. Minor events are not fixed, so they can be changed. Like, you cannot stop a specie from dying out, but you can participate in a major war with minor consequences.




rebornintheglory

keyboard warrior

50 XP

20th January 2006

0 Uploads

22,190 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago

Isn't this also the atom smasher that's possibly going to create the first teeny little black hole that will only engulf the earth in about a millisecond?