50 bowls of genius ice cream

why would someone travel BACK in time?
who has time to waste

remember
if you travel back in time, you can never go back in the future unless you reinvent the time machine!!!

ppl in the future would rather travel in the future then back in time :thumbsup

Some people really need to step away from the pipe.

The hippie ice cream is spiked, someone may need to sit with you to talk you down :)

dude, I have credibility here.:winkwink:

why doesn't my speed of sound theory hold water?

not true, the future hasn't happened yet

Thought I'd chime in on this one, since I've had this one thought in my head for such a long time:

You're travelling from point A to point B. You keep doing, each time going twice as fast as the previous time. If it were possible to reach a speed that the time to take you from point A to point B was 0 (instantaneously), then if you were to go any faster than that speed, you would have to be at point B BEFORE you left point A, thereby jumping somewhere in time...

But, you will never reach "Instantaneous" speed, because if you graph out all this junk, you get an asymtope that represents instantaneous speed, which you can never reach. Is this the speed of light? I dunno.

Just thought I'd throw that out as something else to think about...

are you telling me that you have more credibility than einstein :P

the fact is, 12clicks
many scientists study the theory of relativity
and if they were so certain that it was impossible, everybody would know of it by now.

what you say maybe makes sence to you, and to others, but PROBABLY isint the fact :winkwink:

dude, its mind expanding

exactly. that asymptote is what its all about
thats why I DO believe in going in the future
although going in the past is somewhat farfetched :thumbsup

:1orglaugh send me some :1orglaugh

For one, you're asking GFY about complex scientific relativism. We're the folks who can't stop cheaters from changing their TGP galleries on us, remember?

:glugglug

never reach instantaneuos.your trying to divide in half to get to zero. it can't be done.

thats why its an asymptote :winkwink:

Ok lets be simple.

You somehow can travel at the speed of light. You get in your spiffy machine and zoom out into space at the speed of light.

You travel for 4 light years, flip a u turn and zoom back to earth.

You land your spiffy machine, get out and you will only be 8 years older, but the rest of the people on the planet would have aged a whole lot more.

You suddenly relize yes 8 years have past for you but for the rest of the planet it is not so. That places you where? Oh yeah in the future.


Edited- forgot to double the years for the return trip.

in certtain circles :winkwink:

I think the pros have jumped to too many happy conclusions because of einsteins reputation.

the places you were? 4 years in a space shuttle for you
50 years in a space shuttle for the others

While I agree with most of what you said, the speed of light is not instantaneous. If it were, it would not take 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach earth.

hehehe, people study this theory day and night
they dont just sleep on what einstein said :thumbsup

you have zero proof of this.
The amount of time you are gone from earth is the full amount of time youve been gone no matter how FAR you go.
get it?
If you go 20 billion miles in 5 minutes because of speed, you are still only gone for 5 minutes.

if you were in that ray of light
it would be instantaneous to get to earth

but FROM earth, 8 minutes is what it takes =)

its not the earth traveling @ the speed of light here, its the ray of light

so then why am I less relevant than them. I think about it as much as einstein did. :)

:thumbsup

but do you have graphs and pages of calculations to prove your point? :winkwink:

So in the terms of that, an instant would get a ray of light to earth, how many instants would it take to get that same ray of light from the sun to pluto?

not true. if you are in the ray of light, you will take 8 minutes to get her. and your friend standing on the sun will have had 8 minutes pass.

yes, so?

Like 12 clicks, all you do is an observation ... not really related to Einstein theory... :2 cents:

Ok we have stars in the sky, many of which have long burned out. The light is still reaching us in the future.

I dont think that has to do with relativity, just the speed of light.
but yes, its very true

seeing a start that is 6billion light years away :thumbsup
that means we see the light 6 billion years after it was sent out

Albert didn't have all that much either. :)

Yes therefore we are viewing the past.

8 minutes earth time
time for earth = distance/speed

You are not the center of the universe.
Just because you haven't seen it yet, doesn't mean it hasn't already happened. Much like the gunshot you never hear that kills you.

yes :thumbsup
its fascinating

oh god... :1orglaugh
if we know the average life of a star (lets say its less than 6 billion years, for example)
and we know that its more than 6 billion light years away
we can then deduct that the star no longer exists

12clicks, read this page carefully. It might give you some insight in the theory you are attacking.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

this doesn't prove your point.:glugglug

well 12clicks
the 8 minutes you say is how long it takes the earth to see the light
its the same thing as what we were talking about earlier.
if someone went near the speed of light
it would take him 4 years blah blah,
but it would take the years 50 years, for example

same thing for the ray of light
except it goes @ the speed of light, not a speed NEAR the speed of light. so instead of taking it 4 years (in the example) it would take him 0 seconds :thumbsup

once again 12clicks
great thread, I like discussing about such things with brilliant minds :thumbsup

we can also deduct that we are seeing an image from the past. so?

if that planet explodes today but we don't see the explosion for 100 years, it doesn't mean that it still didn't explode today.

what we SEE is irrelevant to time.

Thank you, captain obvious. I think i had that covered when i said "my 2 cents" and informed everyone that i was not a physicist. But thank you for clarifying!

Can we move onto dimensions now?

Should there be a fouth?

I'm having fun.:thumbsup

No. :)

I can not imagine anything beyond the 3rd dimension
here is why:

first dimension is a stick
second dimension is another stick, linked to the other stick with other bars (wich would give a square)
third dimension is another square, linked to the other square with other bars (wich would give a cube)

but even if you link 2 cubes to eachother with bars, it would still give you a 3d object (if we think of 3d being an object that has height, lenght and depth)

:2 cents:

Not true.
if it takes 8minutes for light to get here, thats how long it takes. if the sun explodes, it will take 8 minutes for us to see it.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20030319/104808600007.html :1orglaugh

once again, 8 minutes for earth :thumbsup
if EARTH times the ray of light, it would take 8 minutes
but if we stick to the theory, if the ray of light had a watch, it would take him 0 seconds :thumbsup

lol please dont go there :1orglaugh

No.
It would take zero time for the light to be created by the sun but it would take 8 minutes for the light particle to reach the earth.