Time travel =P

[AsianBlossom]

And this is why I'm leaving this thread...too complex...

Bye-bee!!

[Raiden no Kishi]

So . . . how do scientists have any ability to know about this topic? How do they know anything about the nature of time?

.rai//

[termyt]

Just by observsation. See a phenomena, document it, try to repeat it.

Then make your best guess as to what it means about the way the universe works.

There's a lot of room for error, but that should be OK.

[Technomancer]

So . . . how do scientists have any ability to know about this topic? How do they know anything about the nature of time?

.rai//

Theory and observation primarily. Once a theory is formulated, it will make specific predicitions that can be tested. For example, Einstein's special theory of relativity made certain predictions about the nature of time as perceived by different observers. These predictions were testable, and the tests bore out the strength of the theory. Thus, fast moving clocks can be seen running slower than other clocks moving at slower relative speeds.

Einstein's general theory also has some potentially interesting solutions, that may affect the feasibility of strange kinds of travel. But at current it's not fully known whether these solutions are simply artefacts of the mathematics, or so tightly constrained as to be of no practical value

[Dante]

Again with the absolutest statements. I guess since it is obviously false, I am either obviously attempting to confuse and mislead people or I am obviously an idiot for presenting it. I'm sure there's more than a few who agree with you on the latter.

You don't hang out around the same type of scientists I do, do you, mine love to use the word obvious so I've picked up the habit as well.

But if you don't call that manipulation, perhaps you could ascribe a definition to manipulating time, or space for that matter. For earlier you seemed to declare that we could manipulate space, but not time much in the manner a man manipulates a piece of wood molding it and shaping it as he pleases. At our current technological state I would have to agree we can't manipulate time like this. BUT, I would also have to say that we cannot manipulate space in the same manner either.

For space can expand or contract via Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contractions much in the same manner time changes according to the special theory. In the same manner that no object can appear to travel backwards in time from our perspective, neither can any object appear to be travelling towards us and redshifting, nor can an object in motion relative to a rest frame appear lengthened. Only blue shifts are allowed in this situation and length contractions are the only form of spatial distortions allowed for moving rockets (such the rocket length appears to shorten).

Therefore, if you were implying that we can manipulate space, but not time, then you must in turn deal with the above statements as well I would think (unless of course I have forgotten some of my SR).
-Pascal

[termyt]

Well and true, I suppose, but I wasn't really thinking on so grand a scale as the space of the universe. I was thinking more along the lines of the space in my house. I can manipulate the space in my house by adding or removing a room, for example. In theory, we could expand that ability – not to manipulate the laws of the universe, but manipulate the amount of space three dimensional objects occupy within those laws. Regardless of how many dimensions you can manipulate, you are still bound by the laws governing how the universe works.

It is possible that we are four dimensional beings and we simply have not figured out how to manipulate any dimensions other than the first three. However, if that's the case, then we are four-dimensional (or 5 or 6 or more) and thus not bound by the fourth dimension. In that case, I would say that my statement is not so much wrong in the theory as wrong in the assertion of how many dimensions we occupy.

“Obvious” is a bit of a “weasel word,” though, and more than the theories we discuss, I flag the use of such words because of how they change the meaning of sentence. By using “obviously” as you did, you are saying to the casual reader that my statement is of no value and should be discarded immediately without further thought because it is obvious that it is wrong. So more than trying to assert I was right, I was objecting to being cast aside as though what I said was completely without any merit for discussion. (I took no offense, by the way. I do not believe that was your intent, but debate itself is more my passion than many of the topics debated.)

[Dante]

Well and true, I suppose, but I wasn't really thinking on so grand a scale as the space of the universe. I was thinking more along the lines of the space in my house. I can manipulate the space in my house by adding or removing a room, for example. In theory, we could expand that ability – not to manipulate the laws of the universe, but manipulate the amount of space three dimensional objects occupy within those laws. Regardless of how many dimensions you can manipulate, you are still bound by the laws governing how the universe works.

Aha, I see, then you are not talking about manipulating space, so much as manipulating the spatial dimensions of various items. However, here too, space and time must be treated with equalality. The creation of a room on your house is indeed an event, and takes place not only within space but also time. You can choose not only what spatial dimensions you want to add to your house, but also the temporal time that you so desire to do so. In other words, all changes take place within time and if we so choose we can procrastinate and manipulate the house changes as we so deem fit.

It is true that we cannot go backwards in time and remove the event in our current state much like you can choose to remove the volume of a house at a later point by cutting it off. In this manner you are correct.

But, we must remember that space has its limitations as well, which leads me to an interesting thought process. Perhaps our analysis of the problem is not to far from an analysis of another spatial problem. You can at the least go backwards in spatial house volume only until the volume is zero.

THERE SHALT BE NO HOUSES WITH NEGATIVELY VALUED VOLUMES!

Ok, so perhaps God didn't say this, but he seems to imply it in our everyday experience. If you watch two people go into a building and three come out you know that at a minimum the number of people in the building must be zero, we can't have another person enter the building and suddenly result in an empty building (it makes no sense... alot like my explanation of basically anything). The question is, does time share this property. That is, does the possibility of going backwards in time result in a negative temporal space-time hypervolume that violates common sense (the no negative volumes concept above), in the end this may be the real question we are truly thinking about. What do you think? (Yes I am feeling in a more civil mood today :{P )

-Pascal

[termyt]

Ah yes "spatial dimensions" is a much better term for what I am speaking of. When I assert, or at least proclaim the appearance that, humans are three-dimensional, I am saying we have the ability to change the first three spatial dimensions. We do not alter the very nature of anything occupying those dimensions, but we can manipulate how they occupy those dimensions.

Time is the fourth dimension. The fact that we don’t really recognize it as spatial is perhaps another indication we do not have power over it.

On my observations, I say we do not manipulate this dimension as we manipulate the others. We can choose, within the way we perceive time, “when” we will do something, but that is not a manipulation of time as much as a demonstration of our lack of ability to manipulate it. For example, if I choose to add a room to my house, I can choose to do it during the month of March 2008. If, for some reason, I decide to wait, I can still add a room, but I’ll never be able to do it in March 2008. Of course, it is possible that one day we will be able to go back and build it in March 2008 again, but that would prove we are, indeed, 4-D creations instead of 3-D.

The four dimensions are very similar, though, so some laws that we recognize would naturally be extended to manipulations of time, if we are able to do so. For example, if the room I want to build requires ten square feet to build, then I will never be able to do it in less than ten square feet. Similarly, if it requires 5 people at least 10 hours to build the room, then it will never require less than that (realizing that adding a sixth person may reduce the time requirement, but altering resources is not a manipulation of time, per se.

I think we are talking in circles, now, so allow me to ask a question to try to sort out our positions:

If I spend an hour watching TV, have I manipulate that hour?
How about if a fly very fast so that there is a difference in the amount of time I spent doing it versus the amount of time some one on the ground waited for me to finish?

[Dante]

If I spend an hour watching TV, have I manipulate that hour?

Not the hour but the event with respect to that hour. You could have watched a different show or taken part in a debate with me on CAA ect. ect. .

How about if a fly very fast so that there is a difference in the amount of time I spent doing it versus the amount of time some one on the ground waited for me to finish?

No, you've only manipulated the amount of time that someone else would "percieve" you watching television. They would for instance see you either red-shifted or blueshifted, and shortened in the direction of travel and the person inside would be eating popcorn at a much slower rate.

However, at the same time you'll experience the show in real time, there is no way to manipulate time within your reference frame. You can only manipulate observed reference frames unfortunately.

[king atlantis]

time travel...hmmm...i <3 the idea.

i have two possible ideas, since, mathmatically, it IS possible.

1) something like in Stephen King's the lang...a somethings. you can go back in time, but since time goes on, meaning everything else is in the future, youd be the only one their...so, um, boring.

2) time is self correcting, their for you can go back in time, but, no matter what you do, have no influence to change it (thinking the time travler movie- no matter what the guy did, his fiance still dies)

3) *yeah, i said i only had two...but, w/e* people created the idea of time to explain the passing of things...so...we cant travel back in time because it would make us go insane because a long held truth turns out to be a lie O_0

in either case, God exists outside time and space....time being something we humans created to explain the passing and growing/dying of things; a straight line of thought.
God exists in...say....a loop around it. ie- draw a line on a paper. a small one. that is time. the white around the line? eternety.

anyway....mabey UFOs are time machines XDDD

[termyt]

You can only manipulate observed reference frames unfortunately.

To me, then, that says that I do not manipulate time, but that I am bound by it. It points to time not being absolute but variable based on outside forces, but I am not one of those forces.

2) time is self correcting, their for you can go back in time, but, no matter what you do, have no influence to change it (thinking the time travler movie- no matter what the guy did, his fiance still dies)

I prescribe to this theory – more or less. The way I see it, if I were to travel back in time, then my actions there are part of history. There is only one history and it is the sum of all actions taken up to now.

For example, I was alive in 1990. In 1990, I did things which had some kind of affect on history – at the very least I talked to people and consumed resources.

That is a part of history.

If I traveled back in time, from 2008 to 1920, let’s say, then I would do things – talk to people and consume resources. This would be part of history.

So, anything I had done in 1920 would have still been done in 1990 when I was a boy and in 2008 when I prepared to go back to 1920. I don’t change history, just act in it as I always have.

So, if I go back in time to 1920 to assassinate a young Hitler, I know I have failed before I even leave because I know Hitler lived through to 1944. The actual result is a little unsure – I may fail to kill him or, if I do, someone else assumes his name and place in history – either way, a man named Hitler rules Germany and the world is plunged into war.

Of course, if I were writting a novel, I would not take this stance becasue it makes for a pretty boring story unless I am just shooting for a "slice of life" / "fish out of water" type story or intend to make my protagonist his own grandfather.