Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Time Travel-Is it possible?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 201
Time Travel-Is it possible?Page 9 of 20    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
msg 280


If space was being created then the wavelength of the light wouldn't be stretched, it would just have further to go and be the same wavelength.


I see what you are saying; but then what would happen in a Vacuum; does space merely 'go away' or is it stretched to infinity?

" space doesn't exist unless there are objects in it"

I don't have a problem with this^, but there are objects then time becomes a necessity in order to bridge this space; thus I don't think its an illusion.


The relational view proposes that space is contained in objects and that an object represents within itself relationships to other objects.


Naturally, if you didn't have space there could be no objects (apart from a singularity). If space is inherent with matter then everything is part of a totality that cannot be fully deduced by simply examining the "parts".

The notion that time stops for an observer who is "outside" the Universe is interesting, but I don't necessarily think it means that time (for us)is an illusion.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 202
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 3/26/2014 2:35:11 PM
^


Does a vacuum really exist?


Well, prof Vic Stenger seems to think so, as he feels the universe came about from the pure void


An illusion is something that appears to be there but is not.


in the classical sense maybe; but according to your line of thought; time seems to be a 'necessity' in order to have the kind of 3-D universe we are in; thus I wouldn't go as far as calling it an illusion.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 203
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 3/27/2014 3:52:40 AM
I think that what's often meant by saying that time is just an illusion, is that it is an epiphenomenon. Maybe the term "epiphenomenon" works well here in expressing what is meant.

That it doesn't have it's own direct earmarked energy or particle that creates or causes it. It's just a process or event or effect that takes place because of other things. It's an "emergent" feature of reality.

But I still so far don't agree that time is "just an illusion" in any absolute literal sense. It's still really there. It happens. It is relevant to reality in many ways.

Your reflection in a mirror is just a reflection, instead of there being another person there, but the reflection still exists, and reflections still have concrete effects in the universe. It's only matter of properly defining the reflection as a reflection, and understanding it's properties and affects properly...but not that it isn't really there.

The color that I perceive in my brain is "only" a symbol that my brain creates to represent a wavelength of light...but that perception is still about that wavelength that is really there, and speaking of the color that I perceive is still about something that really happens.

Of course, whether time is or isn't what I think that it is, when we try to explain time from the standpoint of quantum approaches and really hard physics, the question almost seems to become moot, or transforms into another question.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 204
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 3/27/2014 4:45:58 PM

It isn't an event, it's a measure of the event

I think that's what I mean. It's "just" a measurement of something. But that measurement exists, and that measurement is time.

Except that I might still define time differently - it is "something happening". Yes, it's meaningless if you can't have a difference, that between two events, what you call measurement.

I say that time is all events, the process of energy transformation, and our perception of time existing is our ability to perceive energy transforming, which we just think of as things happening; I say that the event itself, any event, is time...what you're calling measurement, and that the issue of measurement comes into play in order to guage the rate or speed of an event, and to know it even happens...needing something to contrast it to...

But you're saying, I believe, that if there isn't that difference, comparison, or way to measure one occurance against another so that we can even know that something's happening or to establish a "rate" of time's passage compared to one or the other...that there then isn't time (?).

A mile is a measure of space between two objects. If I only have one object, how can I measure distance

Yes. But this strikes me as simply pointing out that you can't measure a distance between objects if you only have one object. But I'd still wonder if we could say that there still is space. If so, we may not be able to make any measurements that are useful, if we're talking about measuring between objects. We would just be measureing out to any ambiguous distance from the single object. But again, can there be space beyond an object if no other exists? But so, the way that I'd think that this applies to time is that there isn't any time if there isn't any...event? Entropy?

Your reflection isn't 'in' the mirror, that's the illusion

True.

The reflection is in your mind

But the reflection still happens. And I was meaning that time still happens - by saying that it's "just" an illusion, I like to clarify what's meant by that.

...the ball isn't on or the other side of the cushion, it's down the pocket. Your brain creates the image from where in this analogy it way played or stuck by the cue...

I don't understand this wording. I think maybe a typo is in exactly the wrong place to make it all incomprehensible to me.

In the quantum word, as I've explained, time no longer exists. It is impossible to measure entropy relative to another because of the uncertainty principle therefore the particle ends up in a superposition

Yes, that part is crazy. In that world, a whole other bunch of shit is going on. I think it's because we're looking at things that are so quantum, small, that the process of energy transformation that I think is "time" almost no longer exists as we know it. Going that small, we can't observe it anymore. Because it's a whole new ballgame.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 205
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 3/29/2014 4:44:37 AM
Well, just remember, at the moment I'm just nit-picking the phrase "just an illusion" (time), or so rather, that idea. Though some might say that it's the same thing, I find that I am more agreeable to "epiphenomenon".

To think that there is an image "in" the mirror...that's an illusion. But reflection still takes place, and using mirrors in our lives is very practical and applicable. It's just a matter of properly understanding it for what it is.

I believe that what we have is just that things are wacked at the quantum level. Time either doesn't exist or no longer has meaning there, or at least not the same meaning or question. But we don't live on the quanutm level. Is there any feature of our universe/our experience - energy, force - that is likewise not at play at the quantum level? If so, would that mean that feature is simply an illusion? I'm wondering if it's otherwise completely accurate and useful to think of time the way that I do, and it's just an issue of finding the "makeup" of what defines or composes time at the quantum level such that time therefore naturally couldn't be found there.

Looking at the quantum world is part of using "reductionism" in general - find common denominators, base components, foundational principles, and all that. But in a realm where even all existence can be seen as taking -1 and +1 away from zero in order to exist, and dynamics that we experience here almost don't exist there...won't we just find ourselves saying that everything else is "just an illusion" also? Something true is meant by "illusion", but that word gives the wrong impression, I think.

And so, maybe it'll work to recognize time as indeed being what I think it is, let alone something that's "real", in our experience and for all practical purposes as with many other things...but to not overinterpret what discoveries in the quantum world mean.

No, the same things are going on, energy transformations, it just becomes very difficult, impossible to tell what is going on. The observer gets entangled. As soon as you 'look' you become part of the system (entangled) and unable to measure the changes 'time' because your 'relative' part ceases to become relative. Because of this, your cause and effect can cease to be ascertained so effect can preceded cause. The particle becomes superpositioned, it is both here and there, until we 'look'.

Our observing affecting events - I think of this by thinking of a human observer as just another system like any other system, of energy transformation events, of a collection of cause and effect, already always within the larger ecosystem of cause and effect...that it's not that we're "looking" as we think of it, but because as we look we are interacting like we already are but in a certain way. Just becoming part of the back and forth cause and effect process, though we already are anyway in general. And that's why we affect things in a certain way or see them a certain weird way, but at that level how we affect things are weird. Looks different. Because we're looking so far down into the fundamentals of that whole thing. In other words, we're already entangled. Everything is. But at that point we both become entangled in a different way, and are seeing what's going on when things are entangled at such a fundamental level and see how strange it all is at that point.

And I think the issue of superposition and making something become one thing versus another just because we "looked" has to do with the particle/wave duality - we just don't "get" the particle/wave thing yet (?), such that thinking that something can be here and there at the same time until we "make" it be in one place by looking, or not being able to know a location and a state or movement simultaneously...isn't what's really going on, and that's why the enigma.

Also...you seem to be confirming that time is energy transformation, but there's a discrepancy between "entropy" and "energy transformation" and "energy state". Either this is where my knowledge of formal terminology is getting in the way, or it's a disagreement on what time is in the first place...?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 206
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 3/29/2014 7:04:13 AM
Well darn...so what is it that we're experiencing if time is just an illusion? There is no time? What's happening then?

In seeing me ask that ^ question, does it make one want to say that time is indeed happening? And that so again whether or not it's an "illusion" is misleading for some?

suddenly you get the perception of a difference, we call that time

So time does exist?? This would just be the definition. The difference between events of entropy (so that you can know that it's even happening) is a difference that really exists. The difference isn't an illusion. Or are you saying that the difference is not really there?

No, time is the difference between each energy transformation (even though it is a linear analogue transformation) measured relative to another energy transformation. It isn't the energy transformations, that is entropy, you still seem to get hung up here. If I go from 1joule to 2joules where is the time? If I go from 1joule to 2joules relative to another which went from 3joules to 1joule I can compare the two, that difference is time.

Oh well hell, now I'm wondering why there was apparent disagreement. It's that communication glitch. We've almost got each other trained.

Maybe it's because I'd still say that the energy transformation itself is time (and entropy is it's arrow), but that we just can't perceive it or measure it unless there is some contrast of frames by which to know and measure. That it's meaningless unless we can have some objective "measuring". That it's a matter of guaging a rate of time, versus what time itself is and if it exists even if we can't have a difference.

...as will any particle entangled with it no matter how far away it is...

I see this (?) as just predicting the other particle because they've ended up with the same behavior therefore predictable...but not as them really being entangled (or rather, that they are set on the same "path" such that the dynamics of chaos theory can't take effect on such a small simple level, no butterfly effect, and so their respective behaviors can't deviate) or it being able to be anything and everything until we "look". Do we really know that it's in all states until we interact (look)? Is that extrapolation of data so reliable?

Of course, this part may be in that area where I'm "not formally educated" or haven't done enough of my homework.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 207
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 3/29/2014 8:40:15 PM

No, just changes in entropy relative to another change


There's a meter of space but not A meter

Ok, so, a change in entropy relative to another change does exist. A meter of space does exist.

You keep saying that it doesn't exist. But then that it does.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 208
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 3/30/2014 12:09:02 AM
It? A change in entropy relative to another change...a meter of space. Didn't you say that they do exist, or are real?

Time is abstract

Do you mean that a change in entropy relative to another change is abstract? (and not concrete?)

You need something concrete to give you the abstract

Does that mean that if we have an abstract in our minds of something, then there is something concrete that is real?

Einstein showed us nearly 100years ago time was not a natural phenomenon

Einstein showed that a change in entropy relative to another change is not a natural phenomenon?

there is no master cosmic clock

Well, this is true. Or, at least, I agree with it. For some odd reason, when people think or talk about time, they think or talk in terms of there being an underlying or overarching universal common time frame for everything...a master cosmic clock. And that's part of what gets them all mixed up.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 209
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 3/30/2014 9:08:17 AM
As long as we've established that time really does exist, or is real, whether concrete or abstract. That it's not "just an illusion" -


There is no time?
No, just changes in entropy relative to another change



are you saying that the difference is not really there?
There's a meter of space but not A meter

So, there are changes in entropy relative to another change, just as there really is a meter of space. So, there is time after all.

You seem to be struggling with a lot of this

Are you sure? Just keep swimming. More later.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 210
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 3/30/2014 8:09:16 PM
msg 292


Something true is meant by "illusion", but that word gives the wrong impression, I think.

And so, maybe it'll work to recognize time as indeed being what I think it is, let alone something that's "real", in our experience and for all practical purposes as with many other things...but to not overinterpret what discoveries in the quantum world mean.


The excerpt below might help you understand it better. Time is both real and illusory.

"When it comes to time, QED (quantum electrodynamics) treats time and space as having lower limits. Special Relativity treats timespace as a 4 dimensional fabric. Its impossible to talk about time without the consideration of space. According to Gauge Theory (one of the newest spin-offs of QED), Timespace is quantized, but only in a relativistic sense. Timespace becomes quantized within the boudaries of our frame of reference. It is our limitations as active observers that forces timespace to be quantized, not the other way around."
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 211
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:50:14 PM
andyaa:

You keep talking about a lot of other things, for missing what I’m saying. I would love to address those other things, if we can calibrate our communications already.

First, read through this again, and try to ‘get’ me. If it’s necessary, I’ll invoke this cliché - think outside of your box -

Are there changes in entropy relative to other changes, or not? Is there a meter of space, or not? Is there such a thing as a relative comparison, or not?

If the answer is yes…then it’s just that this may be what time is. Whether or not it’s a ‘real event’, whether it’s abstract or concrete, whether we should call it an illusion or epiphenomenon…I’m just saying that I think that it’s important to clarify what is meant by calling it an “illusion” - because time really does “happen”, it is a real part of our experience and a real part of reality, despite what you want to mean by ‘happen’ and ‘real’.

A comparison is not a real event

Ok. Fine. It’s not a ‘real event’. So what. Time is still ‘real’. If you still beg to differ, then I’ll ask you again - Are there changes in entropy relative to other changes, or not? Is there a meter of space, or not? Is there such a thing as a relative comparison, or not?

Well if time really exists and there is no difference between concrete and abstract, then you have managed to redefine physics along with relativity

Not relevant to a difference between concrete and abstract. And not redefining physics. Not talking about any of that.

there is nothing real between the two, just a comparison

Again…ok, fine. But as you say, the comparison (or difference) is “really there”, no? (If you say that I’m claiming that the comparison is a real “thing”, then I’m going to just have to palm my face. I try to never officially palm my face. Please don’t make me palm my face.)

You seem to be struggling with a lot of this, for the reasons explained. Abstract concepts seem to allude you…

I’m just not used to being able to talk this way in here. And there’s that difference between every day use of words, versus their formal meanings. I need to ramp it back up. That’s ‘my bad’.

things like non linear and non Euclidean geometry. For example, if I said if you walked on this planet any distance, made a perfect right turn, walked any distance then made another perfect right turn (so you've made two 90 degree turns) and start walkin, you'll end up where you began

After my second right turn, I would not make it back to my starting point, because I would fall into a hole created by Bugs Bunny because he made a wrong turn back at Albuquerque.

Yes yes…to use “every day language” - because your surface is curved, it being a sphere, whenever you walk along your straight line, the fact that your surface “tilts” as you walk has the effect of turning you further than the 90 degrees, so that after two 90 degree turns you are looking at your starting point. And since the whole surface is continuously curved and curved into itself, no matter how far you walk each time it will still all “work out”.

I understand ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’ (etc). I thought that we’d cleared that up where that particular issue had originated from. There shouldn’t have been a misunderstanding there in the first place.

You are trying to use terms in a proper formal way. I understand and respect that.

You seem to be knowledeable and up-to-date on quantum mechanics and the like. I understand and respect that.

But we should still be able to have meaningful discussions. Too many unnecessary communication issues crop up that shouldn’t, however. My not being formally educated should not be an excuse nor a barrier, and your line between “discussion” and “teaching” is way too ambiguous and mutable, for example.

And, something that I say way too much in here - I do not respect knowledge nearly as much as I respect intelligence and attitude. I have no less respect for someone that I think may not know as much as me on any subject, based solely on the levels of knowledge. And I try no less to talk with the one versus the other. What always makes all of the difference is attitude, being able to make conversation, and not being riddled with adversarialism, insecurity, or spite. (No, not that I intend this all to apply to you.) I always find it very easy to have meaningful productive discussion with someone who has even an extreme lack of knowledge on a particular subject - if their intentions and attitude is there. Whenever there is a real barrier or sabotage, it is always…always…in the area of intentions and attitude. This is also why I’m always just as quick to talk with anyone who knows more than me about something, and to do my part and present my own effort…but this is also just as dependent on attitude.

I think that I played my part pretty well in the “what do humans look like” thread, hoping that a few people learned a few things *bow/curtsey*. But I’m not holding my breath.

I do admit, however, that I’m still having trouble understanding how you mean a difference between energy transformation and entropy. I know that they are referring to different facets…but I thought that entropy happened because of energy transformation, and so they are always hand-in-hand with respect to what we’re talking about. Synonymous practically. I don’t see them as possibly being independent or exclusive - if energy transforms, an energy state has changed. Always. If an energy state has changed, it’s because energy has transformed. Always.

Now…you’re talking about whether or not an event of energy transformation is meaningful or not depending on there being some comparision to another event of energy transformation…that we couldn’t really know it or guage it if we don’t have some case of relating or contrast. I so far see this as being different from whether or not it even happens. I think that you’re saying “time” would be that difference, but I think that I’m saying that that’s simply a matter of there being a difference or it being guageable, versus it happening at all…and I’m saying that there being a difference between two is just a matter of there being that difference, independent of whether or not it happens in the first place. If there’s a difference, then obviously “it” happened for each in the first place, for there to even be a difference. Or, the difference is intrinsic for it to even happen. Now…I suspect that you may mean something completely different than what I think that you mean, and I’m just not ‘getting’ it because of my lack of education to this depth…I just want to see if you can put it into words, if so. I know for a fact, without knowing the subject as well, that it can be done, and done pretty easily. (As long as you don’t now hop back to the other side of your ambiguous line between what you think of as discussion and teaching, among other things.)

It is also possible that I simply don’t ‘get it’ yet myself, and that you’ve made it pretty concise. I just don’t know that yet. Of course, if I ever know it, then I’ll be getting it. If I don’t get it, I won’t ever know that’s the problem. No? At any moment I could hear myself say Doh! I get it now. I even suspect that I’ve begun to contradict myself now and don’t know it.

But also, I’ve partly just been di ckering with what we should assign the word ‘time’ to. While you say that such-and-such isn’t time, and that such-and-such is abstract…I’ve suggested that what it is that you bring attention to is what we might should be calling ‘time’, whether abstract or not.

With all of that said, this that you said does either give me a clue, or a tool -

because nothing concrete is happening between the two. Both things have changed energy state, the comparison between the two is abstract. No energy has transferred between the two

- I’m not speaking of something happening “between” the two.
- Can something change energy state without some energy being transformed, even within “itself” versus something happening between it and another? Isn’t a change in energy state completely dependent upon there being an event of energy transformation? If either an energy state is changing, or energy is being transformed, wouldn’t there have to be something happening “between two things” within your “thing” even if there isn’t something happening between that thing and another thing?
- Isn’t a difference between two changes of energy state just like there being two clocks that run at different speeds? But that each clock is still doing something nonetheless? (Independent of being able to know this for lack of any comparison.)(Maybe this reveals that any “awareness” at all is dependent upon there being relativity and time-frame differences!)

So why do you agree that there is no universal 'cosmic clock'. A second is a second no matter where you are in the universe if it is just entropy change. Energy transformation happens on a linear analogue which can be broken down to say plank's length which is the same everywhere, if we called this a second then it does not vary and we have a universal clock, therefore time dilation does not occur so we need another explanation for the phenomenon.

Planck length, constant, and time, etc, has been brought up before, but it just didn’t go well.

Whenever I say that there is no universal master cosmic clock, I am basing that on my idea that time, per our everyday experience of it at least, is the phenomena of energy transformation…and so there is no particular rate of that transformation that can qualify as “the” master rate for everything else, there being only different frames of reference with different rates - dilation in various respects, on different levels, for various reasons.

However, I’ve also wondered if something could indeed qualify as an underlying “time frame” through which everything else passes equally. The Planck family presents me with a boggle…

Even though a second is a second everywhere, and every quantum action happens according to Planck, we still have dilation. If it were all the same in the way that I think that you mean, wouldn’t dilation not happen? Planck length may be the same everywhere, but is that not different than how many Planck length’s may be involved in a particular energy transformation event…or rather, a series of them relative to that of another system?

There seems to be some threshold above which dilation happens, and below which it doesn’t. Or a respect in which it does and doesn’t. I’m suspecting that this has something to do with the fact that we have dilation in certain ways, yet the speed of light won’t change despite it’s origin or the frame from which it’s observed…if I’m saying that right (because of the Higg’s field whachumacallit?), and the fact that it’s speed is one of the things by which we derive Planck in the first place, along with the gravitational constant, etc.

Anywho…I think that talking about “time” per quantum mechanics, and talking about it as it applies to our experience at our scale of existence, may be talking about two different kinds of things (?).

ETA: ^ is this perhaps because any of our frames of reference, when assuming that we observe dilation occuring, can be arbitrary, dependent upon what amount of energy transformation we're choosing...not making sure that all things are equal between the two?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 212
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 4/4/2014 4:24:39 AM
Ok. I guess this demonstrates how sometimes knowing some things just isn't enough.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 213
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 4/7/2014 1:25:12 PM

Ok. I guess this demonstrates how sometimes knowing some things just isn't enough

Oh, and if it helps...msg 299 was..."rhetorical".
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 214
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 4/28/2014 4:04:20 PM
Fascinating, Dr. McCoy. How'd you do that? That's a cool trick.

Jim! I'm just a country doctor!
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 215
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 4/28/2014 9:25:34 PM
My duplicate from the future left a post in Msg: 300 revealing how to build a time machine using components and materials available in this time period. I could not allow this. So I traveled to the past and terminated him and his post. However, a glitch remains within the POF construct.

So there's your proof that time travel is for real. Good thing too, otherwise all those stories, shows and movies about time travel would be pretty ridiculous.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 216
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 4/29/2014 2:45:26 AM
Before your duplicate was terminated...I got the plans. And I've copied them in case something happens to me. Mwha-ha-ha-ha!
 Etritonakin
Joined: 7/10/2014
Msg: 217
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 7/19/2014 8:33:59 AM
Time/its effects can be manipulated somewhat -time is somewhat elastic - but I seriously doubt actual time travel is possible. I actually believe it is completely impossible, but, for the sake of argument....

First, it would require making the present essentially lighter and another time heavier by moving matter from one time to another -but that's assuming it is possible to move to another time -which seems rather impossible.

The present is a rearrangement of the past. The future will be a rearrangement of the present. The past does not exist anymore and the future does not yet exist.

Otherwise, new material would have to be created every instant and stored somewhere to be visited.

Time travel would otherwise require rewinding or fast-forwarding everything at once -except the traveller -which seems rather impossible as we do not have the power to manipulate all things simultaneously/reverse or speed up all processes.

Time travel IS possible in the mind or computer, etc., but only as a representation of reality. By gathering accurate information and learning about the nature of things we can construct a representation of what has been and even predict the future if all variables are known. The only true unknown would be decision -but even many decisions can be predicted to a great degree of accuracy.
 verbka
Joined: 1/10/2014
Msg: 218
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 10/9/2014 8:32:39 PM
first define time past present and what does time travel mean?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 219
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 10/10/2014 5:17:57 AM
Ooh...defining time, and past present future, we've tried hard to do that already. I think we have, in the respects that might apply in certain discussions, but we certainly don't agree on the definitions.
 basilisk123
Joined: 12/17/2011
Msg: 220
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 10/17/2014 7:53:57 AM
"Just a thought, if I invent a time machine, travel into the future and kill my future self, is it murder or suicide?"-andyaa

I like the sex variant of that question better.
"If I made a time machine and traveled in time and had sex with my future or past self, is it gay sex or masterbation?"


My answer would be both. If you killed your future self, the time loop would really suck. It would be a interesting form of suicide if you could kill your past self, thus creating a paradox and negating all existence in your flow of time, thus you are still alive because you never came back to kill yourself.
 hemingway114
Joined: 6/16/2014
Msg: 221
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 10/20/2014 12:30:08 PM
No, I'm sorry kiddos, but time travel is not possible. You cannot be someplace before you were there. Reality is reality, despite our wants and wishes.
 bamagrl68
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 222
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 10/20/2014 4:33:16 PM
andyaa- Ok, I admit it, I had to reread this one.
But I get it. (you better watch it, the people having a fit in the big words thread are going to come and get you:D)
Since things are made of individual atoms, IF it's tried, what do think the likelihood is that a person/object could travel through time and REMAIN whole and not end up in pieces or and/or an unrecognizable mess?
Wouldn't even an attempt be too risky?
 bamagrl68
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 223
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 10/21/2014 4:10:53 PM
andyaa- It sounds like a lot of trial and error will be involved IF it ever happens.
Probably experimentation with objects, gradually to animals, then humans.
I wouldn't sign up to be the first to try it!
Then again, every one thought the Wright brothers were lunatics and the majority used to believe that the earth was flat, so you never know.
 basilisk123
Joined: 12/17/2011
Msg: 224
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 10/22/2014 6:22:34 PM
It sounds like what Andyaa is saying in a retardedly over simplified way is someday we will make a time fax machine. Think I read a fictional book on this subject in a grocery store once.
I just want to travel to many distant galaxies and worlds. I think time manipulation and/or bypass would do the trick. Since in regular space and time, we can't go beyond speed of light. So we either got to play around with either space or time to get it done.
 billingsmason
Joined: 2/3/2012
Msg: 225
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 10/26/2014 12:30:06 AM
Great thread Bama.



I thjnk what mr AA is saying is this:

http://www.sciencekidsathome.com/science_topics/how_do_atoms_bond.html


We already have time travel devises.
Google: who invented the telescope

If you looked at Earth from 65 m light years away..... you would see dinosaurs.

*every person needing glasses nods head.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Time Travel-Is it possible?