technology Time Travel Discussion

[Linguz 136]

That's just moving forward in time though, moving backward in time is an absolute impossibility. The passed is stuff that has happened, and cannot be changed. Theres just nothing that can send you backwards in time, and if you have evidence that states otherwise, I would really like to see it please (I enjoy being proved wrong, especially on matters such as this )

 

You can't prove for or against time traveling. One day, you'll see, humans will invent a machine that is somehow capable of sending one back or forward in time for a certain amount of time before they are brought back. I believe this because I believe that everything is possible until proven wrong. You can't prove that we will never be able to go back in time because it's impossible to prove incorrect, especially when you get science involved. A scientific fact is a theory that has yet to be proven wrong that is agreed upon by a large percentage of scientists. If a single scientist, no matter his qualifications, proves it wrong and other scientists can remake that experiment with the same results anywhere in the world, the scientific fact has to be changed. That's the beauty of science. If a single experiment sends something back in time so that the scientist saw it appear before his eyes minutes before he did the experiment's phase that sent it back, then wouldn't that prove that we can go back in time? Until something like that happens, I will believe in it. When something like that happens, I will be proven correct. Then if someone proves that it didn't go back in time but something else happened by coincidence, then I'll go back to my first stance: I will believe in it.

[Crazy Misty 653]

As somepony said earlier the time travel from Majora's mask makes the most sense.

[Linguz 136]

Yes and no. If you are going backwards in time exactly as you did the actions, then yes. If you just transport yourself to the past, then you wouldn't be your kid self. In the second case, the one that would make more sense is how I believe it: You would be there, but when you were there as a kid, your older self would have also been there.

[w1kk3d 56]

It's also very possible to go back in time and kill your parents before you are born, without getting caught in that endless loop! It creates another time stream. It's almost the only way to compensate for that, but you are still alive, you aren't interfering with your own time stream because you have already gone past yours.

[Red Storm 14]

Time Travel is extremely possible, let's do it right now, alright? okay, just read this text for a moment and... There! you just did it! cool, right!

 

but in all reality, time travel as we conceive it is very possible, time travel in the form of time dilation (as in, time moves more quickly here on earth, the more default speed, than while going at an extremely quick speed, or in space) but that's just for forward travel backwards would be the point where we run into issues. seeing as how the universe works, but I suppose if you could get around that issue then yes, you could go back and change the timeline, but the point is, what if you changed your own timeline? everyone assumes that if you murdered your father then you would never be born, causing you to never go back in time, creating a paradox, but yet you would still be there, which leads me to believe that you are not, in fact, altering YOUR timeline, you are altering another version of your timeline, creating an alternate universe, but that would be divulging from the main point and going into alternate universe theory. 

[Twilight Dirac 720]

 

 

While time travel deals with the concept of moving between different points in time in a manner comparable to moving between different points in space, time dilation is concerned with the observed difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers. For example, say we had two DeLorean's traveling across a flat surface hurtling straight towards each other, one going almost at the speed of light (you can get close to the speed of light, but you can't reach it, otherwise shit starts getting freaky), the other traveling at half the speed of light. If you were to observe the two cars colliding, you'd see the faster car seemingly crash into nothing first, then seconds later observe the slower car arrive at the crash, even though both cars did collide at exactly the same time. Now, this sounds like one big optical illusion, but the strangest part is that both observed impacts did in fact occur at different times, not because of our eyes not being able to take in a crash at such a speed, but because the nature of space-time itself.

 

That is not quite how it works.  Mainly because a collision is a single event and therefore cannot suffer time dilation because you need two events separated in time for that to happen.  So all observers will always agree that a collision between two cars will take place when the cars are located in the same place at the same time, just like what normally happens.  I think that what you are thinking of is something called "the lack of preservation of simultaneity between two inertial reference frames" or something that goes by a similar awkward name, where two simultaneously events that are separated in space also become separated in time for a moving inertial reference frame.

 

There is actually a way to send signals back in time related to this using superluminal communications.  The timing between two separated events will shift by a factor of distance*(relative velocity between inertial reference frames)/c^2 when transitioning between to inertial reference frames, but because the limit as velocity approaches c is the maximum speed you are allowed between any two frames, this shift in timing can never exceeding the separation distance divided by the speed of light, which is exactly the time it would take light to travel between those two events.  So as long as their is a speed of light delay between cause and effect, it is impossible to find an observer for which effect precedes cause.  Allow somebody to manipulate a distance object using a superluminal signal, however, and suddenly there are inertial reference frames that exist where the superluminal signal arrives at its destination before it is sent.  Set up a relay system using distantly spaced objects at relativistic velocities using this principle and suddenly you can send messages back in time using superluminal signals.  This is of course one of the reasons superluminal velocities are disallowed on anything that could be consider causal in Special Relativity.

[Pinkieandsuch 38]

If you can fly at the speed of light, which is impossible, you can go into tomorrow. It is a scientifically proven fact.

[Teen Buscemi 135]

Time travel is completely possible,however a time-machine (That is to say, time-travel on a massive scale) time travel would be improbable (not impossible though) the sheer power and temporal-engineering would be absurd! But, for now I'll just prance around in a Police-box while wearing a rainbow-scarf...