time <split>

I think building a submarine would be very difficult. Possible easier to make a time machine and see what they do in the fueure then you come back with the plans and build that one.

PS--the time machine does'nt look too difficult, its just an old leather reading chair with a big disc on the back and a removable throttle lever.

 

I buried hundreds of bottles offering all sorts of incentives to future finders if they woud return to my time and give me information on furture technology but no takes so far. The future must be a wonderful place if they find my blandishments so unattractive.

 

Ummm - the bottles haven't reached the future yet, you're still alive.

You cant complain until you have been dead a few thousand years

 

May be we all finally kill ourselves and their is no future.

 

Or the guy that invents time machine reads this thread, decides to build a concrete sub and dies in it and can't come back to help you.
'

 

wierd people are time travellers, like lady Diana and Liberace.

George Bush is probably one too

 

Who knows, maybe the future already does exist, in an Einsteinian sort of fashion. Doing my head in thinking about that !

 

Its called the grandad theory, there are rules of time travel like laws of science such as water can not be heated above boiling at sea level ect.

You can not come back and murder your grandad for instance or you would not exist. This is very important for time travel, if a time traveler was to get run over his consequences in life would change and many people would disapear.

Lots of people go missing every year because of irresponsible time travelers like Elvis, he had to go ,--he broke the rules.

 

Actually past present and future all exist at the same time. Think of it this way. take two atomic clocks and calibrate them to read the same time. The clocks accuracy is known within x variation. Take one and place it in orbit around the planet, the other remains on the surface of the planet. The speed of the one in orbit means it experiences time at a different rate than the other. When you bring them back together they read different times, outside the range of established accuracy. Here's the tricky part. Each of there "now's" are just as viable. IE what each experienced from moment to moment was just as real for both.

Now what if they were able to observe one another during the experiment. A situation we have when we use a telescope to look out at the stars. If we ignore the issues of the red shift and just take the standard model at face value the farther away a star is the further back we are looking in time. But that doesn't mean that now for the object we are observing doesn't exist, because if the distance wasn't so great then we could do like we did with the clocks and bring them back together and see that both still exist even though the time they experienced was different.

Now is just as valid for either, each past can be observed by the other, and one is also always in the future relative to the point in time when the other is being observed. Time is nonlinear. Therefor past present and future can be shown to each exist within any given fraction of time.

Kinda a mind bender but it does work.

 

NOW, this thread is getting interesting.

It's about time!

ROTFL

-Tom

 

I don't believe that.

 

I hear it has been tested in aircraft and found to be correct. A tiny discrepancy, but real nevertheless. It is pretty well established that if you took off in a super fast spaceship and moved at tremendous speed ( not technically likely in the near future) you could, in theory, return to Earth a year or two later and find everyone you know gone, because earth time has moved on several decades.

 

As I understand it, this doesn't seem to be a commonly accepted concept. - "Time" is a rate of Entropy ( or change of state - eg decay of atoms, distance travelled from another thing) (S=klog W according to Boltzmann).

Things may experience different rates of Entropy (like the atomic clocks) , but there is no past, present or future relationship between them - there are just conditions of differing rates of Entropy in relation to each object. Because a clock didnt 'age' at the same rate as the other clock, doesnt mean either one travelled into the past or future of the other clock, they just changed their physical properties (atomic decay) at different rates. (the fact that high velocity caused this is a function of "space time", not Time)

With Entropy, it is true that theoretically, the ability of things to move from a low state of "entropy" (low disorder ), to a high state of disorder (high entropy) should be the same.

Theoretically, the ability of an iceblock to melt (low to high entropy of change) should be just the same as a blob of water turning into an icecube ( high to low entropy).

But the probability of high entropy returning to low entropy, is waaaay lower, hence the illusion of "times arrow", or "entropys arrow". On a cosmic scale, where the probabilities are so enormously larger, Entropy has theoretically been calculated for go from High to Low States, but even so, this doesn't result in a reversal of Time.

I consider Time can never be non-linear, the very definition of Time is that it IS linear. "A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession".
It can pass at different rates, for different objects and locations, but time must, by definition, be one way.

The concept of "space time", " the four-dimensional continuum having three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate that together completely specify the location of a particle or an event", should not to be confused with "time".

The probability that someone in the future, could arrange things (people, their memories, atoms of objects) into an identical condition that existed thousands of years before is theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely statistically.

 

Of course -thats obvious but just placing a clock in orbit does nothing.

If you sped away from the town clock at the speed of light the clock would stand still as you are travelling in the light of the clock. If you returned at the same speed the clock would run twice as fast and be back where it was when you left.

It easy to travel through time but not at origin.

If you were in a speeding train and you had a mate in another train at the same speed yet the trains were only 6 feet apart and you passed a ball over to him the ball traveled much further than 6 feet.

The ball also has to travel the speed of the train in the same direction. But you saw it only travel 6 feet. Oh no--ive gone cross eyed.

 

Well MR Watson all I can say is go check out the latest research on it.

There is multiple atomic clock studies that show time moved differently depending on conditions. Even ole uncle Albert hit fame and glory with the realization.

my now and your now are both just as valid, even though we each experience a different now depending on certain environmental conditions. Its a very basic fact of modern physics.

here's another way to think about it. Lets say we can both see each other in our present now's. but each of us is moving at different speeds. So much different that my perception of time and yours are different. Now from a third persons point of view, which of us in in the past and which in the future ?

Both there nows must be accepted as being equally as valid, after all once they both stop moving they can still see speak feel and interact with one another can't they ? So the point is that regardless of position time itself must be non linear. One second does not necessarily follow the next. Otherwise how could it be that one party might be able to directly observe the others past.