What If: & what would you take with you?

Originally Posted by ZrByte

I dont need think about this hypothetically anyway, Ive allready been told I must go back to the 1980's and Terminate Sarah Connor, my PC told me


What? why are you all looking at me like that?

Originally Posted by scastle

Invent your own Operating System and call it "Nem-ess-Dos"


I'll get me coat..

I think you deserve an, Incog special, 'punny' award for that one

going back in time to see the 'true version' of events, has been debated often, the 'uncertainty principle' still applies - the event can be affected by the observation - however I wouldn't be surprised if Incog is also correct with her post - i.e. that 'travel' to the future may be possible, but not 'travel' to the past?

Bob Shaw's 'Slow Glass' stories are good for an illustration of what I mean

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by homealone

I think you deserve an, Incog special, 'punny' award for that one

going back in time to see the 'true version' of events, has been debated often, the 'uncertainty principle' still applies - the event can be affected by the observation - however I wouldn't be surprised if Incog is also correct with her post - i.e. that 'travel' to the future may be possible, but not 'travel' to the past?

Bob Shaw's 'Slow Glass' stories are good for an illustration of what I mean

Its allready possible to travel forward in time, though only by seconds.
Its a fact that when traveling at supersonic speeds time affects you less than it does when you are stationary or traveling at sub sonic speeds.
From what I remember the effect is so slight that 4hr flight might only move you 1 second into the future, so allthough the flight only took 4hrs to you it actually takes 4hrs 01second to everybody else.

Obviously this is useless to us for a practical time machinethough it does shed a tiny bit of light on how time works and may lead to a soloution for making time travel a reality.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by theblueraja

No its not - if you went back in time and changed things, by definition its already happened, so therefore everything would still be the same.

Stooopid.... Tsk

Yes but what if you went back to the 2nd world war and the time machine dumped you in the middle of the war zone, you get shot and you die.
Then what happens to the future as it has already been written and it is there as you have travelled back in time but now you've just died so does that mean you die then at the time and it changes history or your life continues and you died at that moment meaning you never return to the present.

Hmmm

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

Its allready possible to travel forward in time, though only by seconds.
Its a fact that when traveling at supersonic speeds time affects you less than it does when you are stationary or traveling at sub sonic speeds.
From what I remember the effect is so slight that 4hr flight might only move you 1 second into the future, so allthough the flight only took 4hrs to you it actually takes 4hrs 01second to everybody else.

Yep. Time dilation. Very interesting subject.


A good explanation:

Einstein's Twin Paradox -

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstei...win/twin2.html

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/twin.html

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Tezcatlipoca

Yep. Time dilation. Very interesting subject.


A good explanation:

Einstein's Twin Paradox -

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstei...win/twin2.html

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/twin.html

Very good explanations except this silly mistake in the first article...

No way, you say? Well, imagine this. You're standing on Earth holding a clock. Your best friend is in a rocket zooming past you at 250,000 km per second (lucky friend!). Your friend is also holding a clock. If you could see your friend's clock, you'd notice that it seems to be moving a lot more slowly than yours. Your friend, on the other hand, thinks the clock in the rocket is moving just fine, and it's your clock that seems to be moving more slowly. Still sounds confusing? Well, remember it took Einstein years to figure this out, and he was considered a genius.

Shouldnt the one in the rocket see your clock moving more quickly? not slowly?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

No need - He'd already know

That's a worry

Anyway, the grandfather paradox doesn't work if we live in a multiverse.
You'd simply transport into the universe which was expecting you, and should you then kill your grandfather before your father was born, then you would just be killing that universe's equivalent of your grandfather and so wouldn't cause a paradox

Now, has anyone seen where I've put my sonic screwdriver?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

Shouldnt the one in the rocket see your clock moving more quickly? not slowly?

Well, to the one in the rocket, you on the ground are moving at speed.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

Very good explanations except this silly mistake in the first article...



Shouldnt the one in the rocket see your clock moving more quickly? not slowly?

Each person observes the other person's clock as running slowly....hence the paradox. [EDIT: As Xaccers said, to the person in the rocket, it is the person on Earth who is moving fast...and moving clocks appear to run slowly]

It goes into more detail in the 2nd link I gave. It also explains how the paradox is solved.


Another interesting thing the 2nd link mentioned...according to general relativity, clocks at high gravitational potential run more quickly. (time dilation comes from special relativity).

Reminded me of something I read ages ago (can't remember where though)....a clock held at the top floor of a huge skyscraper will run faster than a clock held a ground level, due to the gravity.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

Its allready possible to travel forward in time, though only by seconds.
Its a fact that when traveling at supersonic speeds time affects you less than it does when you are stationary or traveling at sub sonic speeds.
From what I remember the effect is so slight that 4hr flight might only move you 1 second into the future, so allthough the flight only took 4hrs to you it actually takes 4hrs 01second to everybody else.

Obviously this is useless to us for a practical time machinethough it does shed a tiny bit of light on how time works and may lead to a soloution for making time travel a reality.

Do you recover that time? Or is it only relative at the time of the journey?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Now, has anyone seen where I've put my sonic screwdriver?

Maybe it slipped quietly into a seperate universe? The same one all the lost Ballpoints and odd socks go to?

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well, to the one in the rocket, you on the ground are moving at speed.

yes so like I said the one in the rocket should see your clock running more quickly, not slowly like it said in that paragraph I quoted.

Originally Posted by Tezcatlipoca

Each person observes the other person's clock as running slowly....hence the paradox. [EDIT: As Xaccers said, to the person in the rocket, it is the person on Earth who is moving fast...and moving clocks appear to run slowly]

It goes into more detail in the 2nd link I gave. It also explains how the paradox is solved.

That doesnt work. Time is relative so the person caught in the slower passage of time will see everything else running faster. i.e. the person in the rocket will see the people on Earth moving quicker than they infact are (This includes clocks ) It is only the person on Earth that will see the clock on the rocket running slowly (Not Both) as I said they worded that paragraph incorectly. The episode of Red Dwarf season 4 episode 4 'White Hole' is a good example of this (I can provide a link to the small segment of the show if anybody is interested).

Originally Posted by snippet from that link you posted

One of the consequences of the general theory is that clocks at high gravitational potential run more quickly. In terms of Jane's frame during the turn around, Joe is a long way overhead, and so according to her his clocks run fast during that time, and he ages quickly. Further, Joe's 'height' above her depends on how far she has travelled, so his clocks run more quickly during the turn around in a long voyage. Thus if Jane applies General Relativity as well as Special Relativity, she concludes that Joe will be older. General Relativity is not however necessary to resolve the paradox, as demonstrated above.

as mentioned in this snipet from your second link... unless im missing something

Another interesting thing the 2nd link mentioned...according to general relativity, clocks at high gravitational potential run more quickly. (time dilation comes from special relativity).

Interesting stuff, I have held a personal theory now, and have for a while now that time bareley exists between stars. If time is directly proportional to the amount of gravity present, and since stars produce gravity time will bareley exist in the voids between them.
As such a journey that will take 50 years to travel to another solar system could take hundreds of years from our viewpoint on Earth, yet anybody onboard the ship would reach thier destination in the afformentioned 50 years from thier own perspective.

Though I have another theory wich is related yet completeley confuses me as to what to make of the outcome.
Though before I will bother explaining this sister theory I have a question...
How do we calculate the distance between sol and its neighbours?

Reminded me of something I read ages ago (can't remember where though)....a clock held at the top floor of a huge skyscraper will run faster than a clock held a ground level, due to the gravity.

Shouldnt that be the other way around? I thought gravity became stronger the closer to the core of the planet you get, not the closer to the upper atmosphere you get? and if clocks run faster at higher gravity wouldnt they run faster the closer to the ground you get?

[loz-enge]

For the sake of this please dont worry about paradoxes, time dilation or any adverse effects from killing your grandfathers etc.

We were more concerned with things like I.E.
If you were going to "invent" the car, where would you get the steel to build the chassis/engine? Where would you get the ore to make it, how would you mine it, how would you smelt it etc.
Then how would you mill out the cylinders, make the o-rings etc.

Just a simple thing like "invent the car" requires the invention of so many other things first.

Etc... then list could be endless.

[SOSAGES]

i think your all missing the point of going back in time - care free sex loads of beer and fun fun fun!!!!!

[loz-enge]

But would it be?

Care free sex, but would you have got plenty & would there be no cares?
Wer'nt things a bit more strict in olden times, where free sex was not always free as you had to marry first etc.
Unless your talking about the 60's.

Loads of beer?
Would it have been any good? would it be like the beer of today?
How would you pay for the beer? you'd need to either get a job (and that may not pay too well) or use your knowledge of today to become rich & powerful then.