Time travel.. if its possible why havent we seen it.

Scrutinize · 23 Sep 2011 at 13:06

time is only relative to our observation of progress; in simple terms either a directional motion or ageing.

our unit of time is only relative to and based, on our rate of observation.

thus any calculations we make our bound by our laws, physics and the ability to test these.

for example if there was an external observer of our universe from a much larger universe or body, where their unit of time was much longer relative to ours, our entire existence could be marked in seconds to them – relative to our measurements.

for time travel to happen, we are bound by it happening under our laws of physics etc and our understanding, which whilst theorises or more accurately fantasises, of its possibility, is unable to prove it can occur. we need to be able to calculate it relative to an external observer where it can occur. thus we need to take time out the equation to infinitely expand and observe every moment of existence in a static state and in simultaneous existence. basically a road map of infinity and existence and then it becomes a point to point travel, the second problem is finding a method to travel point to point.

Atomic · 23 Sep 2011 at 13:10

If true, Einstein has done the biggest 'BAZINGA' in the history of humanity.

Radiation · 23 Sep 2011 at 13:33

ProjectVRD said:
Time travel has been experienced many times in fast moving objects using ultra precise atomic clocks. Such experiments have taken place on airplanes and in satalites used for GPS and other functions for studying the earth such as weather.

They found that everything that went faster showed it's clock was progressing slowly, with two of the same model of satalite one was travelling at about 25,000mph and the other closer to 19,000mph. They contained the exact same clock and both clocks were verified as working perfectly and in sync, yet the clock on the 25,000mph satalite was experiencing the atoms revolving ever so slightly slower. Which was consistent with the earlier tests where atomic clocks were put onto airplanes and it confirmed the maths.

Those fast objects were in fact slightly out of sync in time itself, it was later confirmed that every time you walk you too will affect your standing in time. The effect of time slowing down for moving objects works to the one very instant of time (about 18 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion billionths of a second. The smallest unit of forward moving time possible) in relation to moving a distance of one hydrogen atom.

You cannot escape time travel and you do experience it to an extremely minor degree every second you breath, because the Earth moves around the Sun and the Sun moves around in the Glalaxy and the Galaxy moves around in the Universe.

With the speed of expansion of our Universe it was postulated that our Galaxy could be experiencing one second for every year that passes in a new galaxy at the center of universe. And likewise every year here in the Milkway could be one second in the oldest galaxy's at the furthest edges of the visible Universe. Simply because the further away from the center you go the faster objects move away.

If i froze you and woke you up in a year you wouldn't say you had time travelled would you?

You merely stopped your bodily function and waiting a year, you didn't travel through time, yes you can wait for the future by slowing yourself down at the quantum level relative to the rest of the universe for a year but that isn't time travel either, your clock is just running at a different rate, you can travel in the three dimensions of space but as time isn't a dimension you simply can't, all you can do it slow yourself relative to everything else but you're physically part of the universe and always existing alongside everything else.

mrk · 23 Sep 2011 at 13:37

You're saying your clock is running at different rate but that isn't time travel? How exactly isn't it time travel if you're not on the same time line as the rest of the local universe?

The analogy isn't the same thing though, you're not physically altering time, time is the same for both "traveller" and his surroundings in that analogy. Moving around a massive object at high speed though is time travel. I cite Hawking's Wonders of the Universe as he put it best in that.

Radiation · 23 Sep 2011 at 13:48

mrk said:
You're saying your clock is running at different rate but that isn't time travel? How exactly isn't it time travel if you're not on the same time line as the rest of the local universe?

The analogy isn't the same thing though, you're not physically altering time, time is the same for both "traveller" and his surroundings in that analogy. Moving around a massive object at high speed though is time travel. I cite Hawking's Wonders of the Universe as he put it best in that.

If you really want to call slowing yourself time travel than go ahead but it's not travel in a meaningful sense, to travel you must be able to go in more than one direction, you must be able to return home, you're merely existing alongside the rest of the universe but not changing at the same rate.

mrk · 23 Sep 2011 at 13:49

Radiation said:
If you really want to call slowing yourself time travel than go ahead but it's not travel in a meaningful sense, to travel you must be able to go in more than one direction, you must be able to return home, you're merely existing alongside the rest of the universe but not changing at the same rate.

So a one way flight to another country is not travelling then?

To travel does not mean to also travel back.

Pottsey · 23 Sep 2011 at 13:51

Vonhelmet said:
That's a fairly thin argument. The displacement could be compensated for in some way, and who's to say that time travel doesn't take account of the relative movement of the universe anyway? Hell, you could even say that surely we could end up with someone who started in goodness knows which galaxy, time travelled, and would up landing where earth is now.

It’s not a thin argument it’s a massive problem most people overlook when talking about time travail. I don’t think you understand the sheer size or speeds we are talking about here. What is a thin argument is you saying but we could just compensate for this very real problem in some unknown way. You would have no point of reference, no idea where Earth had moved to and even if you did if you are just 1/10000 of a degree out and you still miss Earth by a long shot. It’s a massive problem.

The chance of someone time traveling in another galaxy and landing on Earth is well how do I even explain how small a chance that is. Do you understand what a large area we are talking about? It would be easier for me to drop 1 bit of sand on a beach and 10 years later you find it without knowing what beech I was on.

Radiation · 23 Sep 2011 at 13:54

mrk said:
So a one way flight to another country is not travelling then? To travel does not mean to also travel back.

It's meaningless to call changing states travelling in the first place when everything in the universe is changing at different rates together, simply put there is no evidence time is dimensional, stuff just moves and changes at different rates based on mavity and motion.

Domo · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:06

mrk said:
So a one way flight to another country is not travelling then? To travel does not mean to also travel back.

Agreed! Radiation has his/her own perception of time travel. It would appear that not just time, but the concept itself and how it's understood is relative too lol

Domo · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:12

Radiation said:
It's meaningless to call changing states travelling in the first place when everything in the universe is changing at different rates together, simply put there is no evidence time is dimensional, stuff just moves and changes at different rates based on mavity and motion.

That's true. In fact quantum theorists are trying to understand a universe where time does not exist at all. Simply because the start of the universe cannot be explained, therefore remove the time dimension altogether and there is no 'beginning'. The big benefit is it removes the notion of infinity when looking back through time.

Physicists do not like infinities.

[FnG]magnolia · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:13

I think this thread needs full disclosure : everyone who posts has to explain the level of knowledge they have on time travel going from :

1 - pre-school/primary school level - "I LIKE RED BOOKS MUMMY"
2 - abovetopsecret.com - "I LIEK ROD BOOKS MUMMY BUT TINFOIL LOL"
.
.
.
.
99 - Stephen Hawking - "I WRITE BOOKS. WITH MY BRAIN."

FutileBreadMachine · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:14

Pottsey said:
Why? Why would someone traveling back in time be able to contact us? Think about it. If you travail just 1 hour back in time in the same spot you would end up in space as the Earth had moved 67,062 miles in that time frame. Traveling years back in time would put you solo systems away or further. Just because no one has visited us doesn’t mean time travel is impossible. It could just mean they travel back in time and cannot find earth as Earth has moved from so far away from their current location.

When it comes to time travel everyone seems to forget the Earth, solar systems and even the galaxy are not stationery. All 3 move in space. Travel in time and all 3 are no longer in the same spot.

EDIT: that galaxy moves at around 630 km per second. So think if you jumped 1 hour back in time your current spot in the galaxy would be 2,268,000km away from Earth. Now think about what happens if you jump 10 years back? How many 100’s of millions of KM away from Earth would you be? How would you find Earth?

I've thought of this myself and it never comes up in movies strangely.

MookJong · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:15

Do you really think UFO's are aliens?

Aliens would declare themselves, time travellers would be much more careful and discrete and would appear in the upper atmosphere as they would not be able to be sure of the earths location when jumping back.

KNiVES · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:17

Zefan said:
It must be impossible at all times, otherwise (assuming that we have a future so vast that it might as well be infinite) we would have proof in someone/something coming back to our time from that future.

How do you know it hasn't actually happened, but the person has only merely been written off as a nutcase or a liar?

It's like what they say about the second coming of Christ - if it ever happens nobody will ever know, because that person will just be written off as a nut or somebody with mental problems, along with the millions of others every year who claim to be the second coming.

Scrutinize · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:20

Pottsey said:
It’s not a thin argument it’s a massive problem most people overlook when talking about time travail. I don’t think you understand the sheer size or speeds we are talking about here. What is a thin argument is you saying but we could just compensate for this very real problem in some unknown way. You would have no point of reference, no idea where Earth had moved to and even if you did if you are just 1/10000 of a degree out and you still miss Earth by a long shot. It’s a massive problem.

Domo said:
That's true. In fact quantum theorists are trying to understand a universe where time does not exist at all. Simply because the start of the universe cannot be explained, therefore remove the time dimension altogether and there is no 'beginning'. The big benefit is it removes the notion of infinity when looking back through time.

Physicists do not like infinities.

this is indeed a big problem, hence why i posted the below earlier as it is not just when you want to be travelling but where.

mrk1@1 said:
thus we need to take time out the equation to infinitely expand and observe every moment of existence in a static state and in simultaneous existence. basically a road map of infinity and existence and then it becomes a point to point travel, the second problem is finding a method to travel point to point.

Domo · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:20

[FnG]magnolia;20134920 said:
I think this thread needs full disclosure : everyone who posts has to explain the level of knowledge they have on time travel going from :

1 - pre-school/primary school level - "I LIKE RED BOOKS MUMMY"
2 - abovetopsecret.com - "I LIEK ROD BOOKS MUMMY BUT TINFOIL LOL"
.
.
.
.
99 - Stephen Hawking - "I WRITE BOOKS. WITH MY BRAIN."

He he. I've just finished Hawking's Grand Design (read Brief History a long time ago). I would also suggest looking up Richard Feyman lectures/interviews on YouTube. He's just brilliant. I do try to understand quantum field theory but it can be very taxing on the old grey matter.
I love this stuff - I just wish I had the capacity to really understand it.

sanaxe1 · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:26

Possible reasons.

1 ) They do not want to show them selves so they have no effect on the time line.
2 ) The furthest they can go back in time is to when the time machine device was created.
3 ) The timeline splits creating a new reality every time they go back.

[FnG]magnolia · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:27

Domo said:
He he. I've just finished Hawking's Grand Design (read Brief History a long time ago). I would also suggest looking up Richard Feyman lectures/interviews on YouTube. He's just brilliant. I do try to understand quantum field theory but it can be very taxing on the old grey matter.
I love this stuff - I just wish I had the capacity to really understand it.

That was kind of my point. Most (all?) posters in this thread are saying, "Well it's like this, see ... <insert unsubstantiated and subjective opinions>"

I know we have a couple of maths Profs on here; just wondered if we had any physics gurus as well. I mean real ones, not ones the same as me who read a number one best seller back in the mid-80's

iamtheoneneo · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:33

would love to do a quantum leap style project......that would be an awesome way of traveling through time.

Beerbaron · 23 Sep 2011 at 14:40

I thought in theory you could only travel to the future. We would only see people from the past and if time travel had already been invented. Therefore you are not going to see anyone as it hasn't been invented yet.