Discuss traveling through time and space. I just bought a copy of The Universe In A Nutshell by Stephen Hawking (sounds kind of lame, but whatever), and I've looked through it but haven't read much yet, as I still have to finish Dorian Gray.

Here, discuss things about the state of our universe and stuff like that and theories to traveling through it.

if you were to travel through time, the universe would implode....
because matter can neither be created nor destroyed, traveling in time would mean you would be taking matter from your time (matter = you) into another time and universe where there is already that exact amount of matter.
meaning that now, one universe has not enough matter, and the other has too much. causing implosion of both universes (i don't know why. its just happens).


also there is the old old old theory that whatever you do in the past affects the future (I'm sure you've all seen enough movies to know what that entails)

topic closed

Time travel doesn't make a lot of sense to me. For example, if you were to travel back in time to change something in the future, then you wouldn't need to do it in the future, because you've already changed the past. This is a paradoxical situation; also, if one went into the past, a time paradox would be created by having two of the same person on the same time plane.
Traveling into the future, however, is entirely possible. I'm doing that right now, typing this post!
@gussa: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

It's hard to imagine being able to travel to the past. Time continually sweeps people forward through it (concept- aliens that travel BACKWARDS through time). It would be like swimming upstream. You would need to "climb out of the water," so to speak, and get back in further upstream. Does anyone else understand my metaphor?

Time is an illusion created by the human mind. Everything happens simultaneously(poor spellin, yes it is), from the creation to the destruction of the universe. It's just impossible to comprehend. Did I just contradict myself? I am now confused. So says Yoda.

Yeah, you did contradict yourself.

Time is an illusion created by the human mind. Everything happens simultaneously(poor spellin, yes it is), from the creation to the destruction of the universe. It's just impossible to comprehend. Did I just contradict myself? I am now confused. So says Yoda.It's actually called the 4th dimension. Time/Space relation. And its no illusion.

Welcome to the great discussion. It's hard to define time, being in time. It's similar to being in a maze and trying to determine what it looks like from above.

I just watched Donnie Darko, and read some stuff on Wikipedia about time travel and paradoxes. My conclusion:
lol, wut?

It is a topic that can fo' sho' lead one's mind in a circle. I like the concept of Merlin, living backwards in time. That's always fun to think about.

Now, Time/space relation. When you travel through space, you travel through time, but you don't have to be traveling through space to travel through time. However, the concept of wormholes is a sort of exception to this rule, as you travel through time and space in an unnatural way simulateously when you go through a wormhole. The hole is a tunnel through both time and space, and is basically a 'worldline' bent in just the right way. You enter in one end and exit out another end anywhere along the plain of space or time.

Of course, time travel from the future to the past is most likely never going to be possible, as there are no 'tourists' from the future walking about killing or saving random things for no apparent reason. Unless, that is, the future human race has developed a way to be undetectable when they travel back in time, entering, making adjustments, and leaving so quietly we don't notice them, but that's fairly doubtful. Maybe the future humans have found a way of calculating all the possible consequences of their adjustments, which is impossible, calculating that the Butterfly Effect (that's what it is right?), or 'Ripple effect' (one thing causes another causes another and causes another, etc.) is infinite and completely unrelated things happen as consequences for changing the past.

'Tis an interesting thought, so it is.

Come to think of it there really would be no practical use for time travel in either direction. I mean it's too dangerous to go back in time (as the dude above me said) and who really wants to go straight to the future without experiencing or understanding what came before it?

Conversely, if you went into the future without moving through space, you would likely not end up on earth, as earth is continually moving through time and space.

I just watched Donnie Darko, and read some stuff on Wikipedia about time travel and paradoxes. My conclusion:
lol, wut?
I think in that movie he did time travel but as a result he created an unstable alternate universe which would collapse because of its instability.

In Donnie Darko, the message was a lot more moral than it was about time and space travel. He killed Frank because he was angry, and Frank was the one who saved Donnie's life. Frank is sort of a figment of the universe (he exists in time but not space) so when Donnie killed Frank that meant that there was no one in the past to save him, so he went back in time and died, and all that he did between the two jet engine incidents was erased from time completely.

No, Donnie traveled back in time to the day where the jet engine fell, and just decided to lay there at the end of the movie. He was in a predestination paradox, looping those 28 days for a while; this is shown when he's talking to the girl after and says, "I'm really glad the school flooded; we've never had this conversation before."
I suppose he was satisfied with how things turned out on the last run or something, so he decided to let his time pass and the engine crush him.

@gussa: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
nor can matter.
its one of the fundamental laws of science. that and never eat eggs with swiss cheese

And don't snack on Mentos after guzzling Diet Coke.

i learned that the hard way...

No, Donnie traveled back in time to the day where the jet engine fell, and just decided to lay there at the end of the movie. He was in a predestination paradox, looping those 28 days for a while; this is shown when he's talking to the girl after and says, "I'm really glad the school flooded; we've never had this conversation before."
I suppose he was satisfied with how things turned out on the last run or something, so he decided to let his time pass and the engine crush him.
Hmmm...that reminds me quite heavily and undeniably of The Dark Tower series by Stephen King, and how it ends and such. I think that there are a number of things more than what you said, though. It makes sense that he was in a time loop, but I think the reason he got killed that time was because he got mad and killed Frank, and he wouldn't have killed Frank if he hadn't met the girl.

So I think that the girl had more significance to Donnie than is obvious, as I think she alters his fate using the Butterfly Effect, and additionally, the song at the end of the movie by Gary Jules was a direct representation of what happened to Donnie like when he sings about how the times when he dies are the best. But...I think when he said "I'm really glad the school flooded; we've never had this conversation before.", I think he actually says "I'm really glad the school flooded; we WOULD never had had this conversation." Maybe you are right. That movie is largely left open for speculation, and isn't easily explained.

I haven't read the Dark Tower series yet, so I can't really comment or relate to that part.
As for the movie, there is certainly a lot to discuss and debate over. And, I checked the movie script; you're right. He says, "We never would have had this conversation." But I still feel that he was looping that period over, doing different things. It would/could help explain the start of the movie too where Donnie is in the forest or whatever.

I don't think Donnie conciously knows that he is caught in a time loop, or whatever you want to call it. I think that is why he see's Frank, because subconciously he may know it, but he can't conciously understand it. At the end he final reaizes what is going on, and let himself die, freeing everyone else from the time loop, and also saving the girls life. I think that is the real reason he lets himself die, to save the girl. Also, there is the interesting thing with Gramma Death. Every day she goes out to the mail box, looking for Donnie's letter. Anyway, its a great movie, and very open ended. Love the scene where the child porn freak with all the motivational videos comes to Donnies school.

time travel (into the past at least) simply is not possible.
dont even try

I haven't read the Dark Tower series yet, so I can't really comment or relate to that part.

BIG SPOILER, IF YOU'RE PLANNING ON READING THE DARK TOWER SERIES!

The thing about the Dark Tower series is this: it starts with Roland Deschain of Gilead, the last gunslinger left in the world, chasing a wizard through a desert. We don't know how Roland got there. Now, we do know that all of Roland's life he was destined to go to the Dark Tower. It's what he was trained to think, growing up as a gunslinger. He travels all over, meets people from different worlds, and has many different adventures, all the while completely obsessed with the thought of getting to the top room of the Dark Tower. It is his life's ambition to get to that room. There are many sub plots, too. At the end of the series, at the end of book 7, all the characters that help Roland on his quest go back to their world and live happily, and it is here that Stephen King offers to let the reader stop reading the book without knowing what happened to Roland and the Dark Tower. Now, at the end of the book, Roland does indeed get to the Dark Tower. He kills his enemy, The Crimson King, who is guarding the Tower, and enters, reciting the names of those he honored and lost by the name of the Dark Tower. As he ascends the Dark Tower to the top, one artifact from every year of his life is there in one room on each floor (we find out that for all of time, Roland was meant to reach the Dark Tower, and it has been waiting for him all of this time). He reaches the top, at the apex of all drama. At the top, he sees his fate ahead of him. S.K. does not tell us what it is yet. He realizes all this time what was ahead of him, and he cannot stop himself (the hand of destiny pushes him unstoppably forward) and he moves forward...until finally, Roland wakes up in the desert where the story began. All his memories of what has happened, with his reaching the Dark Tower, and all that happened between the desert and the Tower slowly fades from his memory, and all that he knows is what lies behind him before he wakes up in the desert. The story begins with the same lines that began it:

"The Man in Black fled across the desert, and The Gunslinger followed..."

Sorry Neverender, but I do plan on reading it, so that post is kinda wasted on me.

nor can matter.
its one of the fundamental laws of science. that and never eat eggs with swiss cheeseYou must be joking. Matter can easily be created, and destroyed. They do it in physics labs in Switzerland.

time travel (into the past at least) simply is not possible.
dont even tryWhat is with you and these strange axioms. You have stated no reasoning. The 4th dimention starts over into a one-dimentional format, with all lines headed in one direction. So why cant you go backwards?

You must be joking. Matter can easily be created, and destroyed. They do it in physics labs in Switzerland.
What is with you and these strange axioms. You have stated no reasoning. The 4th dimention starts over into a one-dimentional format, with all lines headed in one direction. So why cant you go backwards?
hit me with one of you multi quotal, paragraphed posts will you???


i don't see how matter can be created. where in Switzerland are they destroying matter and how?
i mean atomic matter by the way, not just burning up a bit of paper.

When you burn a bit of paper, all you're doing is turning the paper into carbon dioxide via a chemical alteration/reaction. When you do anything to anything, like dissolve something into acid or burn something, all you're really doing is altering it's state. The word 'destroy' just means that you're making an object less useful for human purposes.

The Lomonosov-Lavioser law states that the mass of a closed system of substances will remain constant, regardless of processes taking place inside the system. I think the exception to this rule is a nuclear reaction, and splitting atoms and stuff, and I don't pretend to be an expert on nuclear physics.

i don't see how matter can be created. where in Switzerland are they destroying matter and how?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
Anti-matter. 1 + -1 = 0 no? When antimatter and matter collide, its called an anihalation, in which both masses are destroyed, and 100% pure energy is released. Could be one of the most efficient power sources ever. One gram of antimatter could power the entire United States for a year. However its still very dangerous. If you were to say, drop a softball sized chunk of antimatter onto the ground, you could essentially split the earth in two. Ouch...
i mean atomic matter by the way, not just burning up a bit of paper.What do you mean? You think the matter goes away when you burn a piece of paper?


The Lomonosov-Lavioser law states that the mass of a closed system of substances will remain constant, regardless of processes taking place inside the system. I think the exception to this rule is a nuclear reaction, and splitting atoms and stuff, and I don't pretend to be an expert on nuclear physics.When you split an atom, it doesn't go away, you just have protons and crap everywhere. Stray atomic particles flying around is called radiation.

The ozone layer is just a bunch of stray atomic particles flying around, unless I'm mistaken. It's a constantly shifting mass of oxygen atoms combining, being broken apart, and recombining again. Is that radioactivity?

Note: It sounds like I'm trying to bust you, Napalm, but I'm not. I'm just curious and you seem to know everything.

The ozone layer is just a bunch of stray atomic particles flying around, unless I'm mistaken. It's a constantly shifting mass of oxygen atoms combining, being broken apart, and recombining again. Is that radioactivity?Eh, thats just switching electrons. Non-Metals like to switch electrons a lot, I don't know why. But no, its not radioactivity. Radioactivity involves atoms being broken down either by natural processes or artificial processes. Everything is radioactive, its just a question of how much so. Carbon and potassium are incredibly un-radioactive. They decay over millions and millions of years. You can measure how old something is by how much of a substance has been radiated.

So basically its just the breakdown of atoms. Radiation can be of Gamma, Alpha, or Beta types. Alpha and beta are neutrons and protons, while gamma rays are part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Heh, we are learning about that in chem right now.

[URL]
What do you mean? You think the matter goes away when you burn a piece of paper?
that was a disclaimer post so i didnt get some noob say

omg u suk u g4y!!!!!!!1111!!!
j00 c4n 3zily destroay m4tt0r by burning omg wtf hax!!!!!!! lulz!

What is with you and these strange axioms. You have stated no reasoning. The 4th dimention starts over into a one-dimentional format, with all lines headed in one direction. So why cant you go backwards?

What do you mean? Fourth dismensional constructs cannot be realized in one, two, or three-dismensional geometry.

What do you mean? Fourth dismensional constructs cannot be realized in one, two, or three-dismensional geometry.yeah, they can.

It depends on the plane.

yeah, they can.

If you're so sure, then show me. The fourth dimension is time, so any construct created would be constantly changing. Change cannot occur in space without a fourth dimension- time. Time causes change. Change causes time. So any model of the fourth dimension is fourth-dimensional.

If you're so sure, then show me. The fourth dimension is time, so any construct created would be constantly changing. Change cannot occur in space without a fourth dimension- time. Time causes change. Change causes time. So any model of the fourth dimension is fourth-dimensional.I don't understand your reasoning, the 4th dimension is time-space no? or duration. Now, we can represent a change in the 4th dimension with a single line, beginning at one point and ending at the other. This constitutes one direction, as there is a single line moving in one dimension, which represents a series of changes.

However the 4th dimension, because of its one-dimensional tendencies, is limited to one set of objects continuing in a unilateral direction. This is because every 3 dimensions, the 4th embodies the 3rd as a single point. as in the 4th dimension, a single point represents that whole set of objects, and a second point represents those same objects in a different state progressive from the first.

such as
Any 2 points, can create a 1 dimensional object
http://i12.tinypic.com/53agraw.jpg

we would have to enter the 5th dimension to analyze more than one possible ending.

any 3 points creates a plane, or a 2nd dimensional object.


http://i19.tinypic.com/6gc1s14.jpg

As you can see, our chart resembles a plane, or a second dimensional object, as we have entered the 5th dimension.

So the dimensions, while not the same, take the same structure as the three proceeding them.


I hope that's "showing" enough.

Dude, you don't want to argue about these sorts of things with MrNaPaLm. I've learned that he knows more things than god so if he says it's true, you had better damn well believe it, unless you want to undergo the painful process of verbal combustion.

Dude, you don't want to argue about these sorts of things with MrNaPaLm. I've learned that he knows more things than god so if he says it's true, you had better damn well believe it, unless you want to undergo the painful process of verbal combustion.I do make mistakes, you know...


Back to time and the universe?

I say, we cannot travel the speed of light.

Although, if you could, some really cool crap would happen, like, looking back and seeing yourself walking backwards.

mmm, time dilation.

I don't understand your reasoning, the 4th dimension is time-space no? or duration. Now, we can represent a change in the 4th dimension with a single line, beginning at one point and ending at the other. This constitutes one direction, as there is a single line moving in one dimension, which represents a series of changes.
However the 4th dimension, because of its one-dimensional tendencies, is limited to one set of objects continuing in a unilateral direction. This is because every 3 dimensions, the 4th embodies the 3rd as a single point. as in the 4th dimension, a single point represents that whole set of objects, and a second point represents those same objects in a different state progressive from the first.
such as
Any 2 points, can create a 1 dimensional object
http://i12.tinypic.com/53agraw.jpg
we would have to enter the 5th dimension to analyze more than one possible ending.
any 3 points creates a plane, or a 2nd dimensional object.
http://i19.tinypic.com/6gc1s14.jpg
As you can see, our chart resembles a plane, or a second dimensional object, as we have entered the 5th dimension.
So the dimensions, while not the same, take the same structure as the three proceeding them.
I hope that's "showing" enough.

All you have shown is a two dimensional change in position. Wheras Earth may have changed position in the future, what you are showing by these models is two earths at seperate positions at the same point in time. A difference in temporal position simply cannot be accurately represented by such a model.

Although none of this actually has anything to do with the fourth-dimensional constructs I was referring to. What you are describing are third-dismensional constructs in four dismensional space.

All you have shown is a two dimensional change in position. Wheras Earth may have changed position in the future, what you are showing by these models is two earths at seperate positions at the same point in time. A difference in temporal position simply cannot be accurately represented by such a model.What the fuck are you talking about? The 4th dimension is space-time. A line in the 4th dimension represents a change from one thing to another. Is it really that difficult to understand? Its just like a flow chart. How else do we represent change over time? Please, explain.

Although none of this actually has anything to do with the fourth-dimensional constructs I was referring to.Which 4 dimensional constructs? You haven't listed ANYTHING. What you are describing are third-dismensional constructs in four dismensional space.All I learned about you from this is that you don't know what lines and planes are.


Well, if your thick skull still can't figure it out.
http://i14.tinypic.com/5zogi39.jpg
heres a nice little model someone else did.

cheers.

Dude, you don't want to argue about these sorts of things with MrNaPaLm. I've learned that he knows more things than god so if he says it's true, you had better damn well believe it, unless you want to undergo the painful process of verbal combustion.
He's not perfect in knowing anything, but I know when it comes to a debate Napalm is a very difficult adversary to overcome.

you'd need at least +7 intelect

Napalm, the representations you keep showing are flawed. It may be fine enough for some to say that the line represents time, but in actuality (what you should wrap your head around) time can only be accurately represented by time. Show me a model wherein the earth actually moves. You've plotted out storyboards, but still need animation. I'll agree with you if you can show me that.

I'm not even going to respond to your conclusion that I do not know what lines and planes are. The only fitting response would be to hunt you down and rip out your throat.

I cannot list any fourth dismensional constructs here- alas, they do not exist in 3-dimensional space. They exist exclusively in fourth-dimensional space and are constantly changing. But I can't expect you to understand, now can I?

Napalm, the representations you keep showing are flawed.Okay, thats fine, So if you wan't to go and read any quantum physics book I can guarantee what I've said is in there. So you can go ahead and make your own new theories about dimensions if you want to. It may be fine enough for some to say that the line represents time, but in actuality (what you should wrap your head around) time can only be accurately represented by time. Show me a model wherein the earth actually moves. You've plotted out storyboards, but still need animation. I'll agree with you if you can show me that.
I cannot list any fourth dismensional constructs here- alas, they do not exist in 3-dimensional space. They exist exclusively in fourth-dimensional space and are constantly changing. But I can't expect you to understand, now can I?Sure they do.

I don't feel like explaining any more to you, so you can go here.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/textonly.php

Heres the same information in an animated video.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA-Part1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WmwrhO3-BN0-Part 2

Strangely enough, he says the same thing I'm saying. Oh well.

you'd need at least +7 intelect
You're going to need more than that to make sure you can go toe to toe with Napalm in a debate.

thats why i said at least....


but in my experiance, teaching people is 10% knowledge and 90% acting as if you know it for sure.

So nobody has anything else to say? *cough*

Maybe Napalm just has too much free time and is able to look these things up? If I had such sources, people wouldn't constantly be trying to prove me wrong. After all, I am working off the top of my head.

He uses something called google and if that doesn't work then I think Wikipedia would be the next thing he uses. I really think that he doesn't have to work too hard to find the resources to prove his point. There's no reason to try to assume that he has too much free time to look these things up. Also...if you're working off the top of your head here then you shouldn't be debating otherwise you won't win the debate. You always need a fact or resource to prove that your point is correct; otherwise you aren't going to win, and if you aren't going to win then you might as well stop wasting your time.

i disagree
ive been studying persuasive language and i have found that there are more ways to prove a point than just hard evidence.....

Punching people is my favorite method, but none of you are within punching range. So I'm forced to act rationally.

Maybe Napalm just has too much free time and is able to look these things up? If I had such sources, people wouldn't constantly be trying to prove me wrong. After all, I am working off the top of my head.So am I, you're forcing me to find sources to prove my point. Welcome to the realm of research papers, I hope you've written one.

i disagree
ive been studying persuasive language and i have found that there are more ways to prove a point than just hard evidence.....
You mean the other irrational ways? I meant to prove a point rationally not irrationally. If you're talking about threatening someone or scaring someone into agreeing with you then I guess those are other methods that work. Other than that, if you want to be uncivilized enough to use that method all the time to prove a point then be my guest...I can't stop you from that.
Punching people is my favorite method, but none of you are within punching range. So I'm forced to act rationally.
Thank you for speaking your mind to us...but we're not your friends or supporters so I don't think we can sympathize with you on that.

Watch Law and Order. They show off some serious skills in proving things with little evidence. HAHA NOT! I hate William Shatner...

I didn't say anything about using a little evidence will not prove anything. I said that one should research sources or "evidence" to prove his/her point in a debate. Having no evidence in a debate just makes debating more difficult for that person.

You mean the other irrational ways? I meant to prove a point rationally not irrationally. If you're talking about threatening someone or scaring someone into agreeing with you then I guess those are other methods that work. Other than that, if you want to be uncivilized enough to use that method all the time to prove a point then be my guest...I can't stop you from that.
Thank you for speaking your mind to us...but we're not your friends or supporters so I don't think we can sympathize with you on that.
what i mean is that you can write a pharagraph that dosent even contain evidence of any real form. as long as you use persuasive language (http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~gmyers/esssa/rhetoric.html) (not death threats)

I didn't say anything about using a little evidence will not prove anything. I said that one should research sources or "evidence" to prove his/her point in a debate. Having no evidence in a debate just makes debating more difficult for that person.

"Difficult"="Challenging"="Fun"

I find research to be too tedious. I only research for serious debating. Usually, what I know is adequate.

"Difficult"="Challenging"="Fun"

I find research to be too tedious. I only research for serious debating. Usually, what I know is adequate.Not in this case.