A New Look at Time Travel

It is possible to go faster than light only if you are made of the yet un-discovered tachyon particles that can never go as SLOW as the speed of light, just as we can never go as FAST as the speed of light, and only un-massed particles, photons, can go the speed of light.
The reason I am bringing the faster than light particles in is that the orginial version as written by Einstein was E/m=c^2 meaning that their was both positive and negative mass, and negative mass is going faster than the speed of light, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sauron-Mordor

Time Travel to the past would not genuinely alter the future, because realistically time would not be altered in the past, but in the future.

In other words, time is constant, so going back in time would be going back in time in the future, therefore, only the future version of the past would be relevant, ERGO, the events in the past of the past would not be altered, only the past of the future event of traveling back in time would be changed.

---

I beg to differ. The point is to go back to the past, no go to the future
If you alter the past, you alter the future, but you alter the future which you're from, not the future-future
and lol, congratulations, you got Milo confused :D

Oh yeah, YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob19991

It is possible to go faster than light only if you are made of the yet un-discovered tachyon particles that can never go as SLOW as the speed of light, just as we can never go as FAST as the speed of light, and only un-massed particles, photons, can go the speed of light.
The reason I am bringing the faster than light particles in is that the orginial version as written by Einstein was E/m=c^2 meaning that their was both positive and negative mass, and negative mass is going faster than the speed of light, etc.

---

E/m=c^2 is the same exact thing as E=mc^2... I don't see how that would make a difference.
Wait, I'm being an idiot again :D

I like Micheal Chrichton's theory - time paradoxes actually don't exist and you can't change the past no matter how hard you try, it will just stay how it always was. Read his book Timeline, it's really good.

Alright, here is my hypothesis on time travel.

Yes, I drew it myself.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/152/timetravelm.jpg

StormSurge's Pictorial Theory wins the debate.

(I get back into my time machine and travel back into the future)

Heres my revised theory. Again, drawn by myself.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/800...velrevised.jpg

Whether or not the "apple tree" dilemma was too thought out, a.k.a. there were many more possibilities than I stated, the main point was that TRAVEL THROUGH TIME! cannot be accomplished if you do it with a purpose other than observation. If you TRAVEL THROUGH TIME! simply to observe, for example if you want to know what the latest episode of Metalocalypse is about before everyone else. If you try to change the course of history, you will fail. Plain and simple.

Also, StormSurge wins Everything Ever in Existence (also known as the E3 award)
For simple awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trogdor1316

Whether or not the "apple tree" dilemma was too thought out, a.k.a. there were many more possibilities than I stated, the main point was that TRAVEL THROUGH TIME! cannot be accomplished if you do it with a purpose other than observation. If you TRAVEL THROUGH TIME! simply to observe, for example if you want to know what the latest episode of Metalocalypse is about before everyone else. If you try to change the course of history, you will fail. Plain and simple.

Also, StormSurge wins Everything Ever in Existence (also known as the E3 award)
For simple awesome.

---

This is only true if you go back with INTENT to change history.

For example, I travel back in time, and I'm walking around ancient Rome, reading Shakespere's Julius Caesar when suddenly I bump into Casesar, and he reads the book to find out he's going to die, and avoids the assassination, yet it wasn't my intent to do so. History has changed, and I have no reason to have NOT traveled back in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nerevar

horse-puckey, nothing is impossible. Einstein said that so long ago it doesn't even matter anymore. As outdated as a 20 year old computer doctorate. Unless there is friction in space that prevents a craft from reaching those speeds, it can be done.

---

1. Just because Einstein said it, doesn't mean it is necessarily true. Especially when it comes to one of his extremely vague theories like "nothing is impossible."

2. Even in space, there is friction. There is the friction caused by tiny particles of spacedust floating around in the nothingness, and there is the friction caused by gravitational pulls from the stars and planets. Which makes me think: If you could classify gravitational pull as a type of friction, what would you classify gravitational oull as when you are being pulled in the direction you are already going? Reverse friction? Meh, I'm not smart enough to comprehend it yet.

3. *Brain Explodes*