![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Are there any theories on the safety of time travel? -- NEMT ( talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, its well known that when time travelling your safety is not guaranteed, especially when you push it to the limit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.16.89 ( talk) 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You could get lost in a completely different parrallel universe and never be able to return to your own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.21.181 ( talk) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's 40 years ago and she looks like your Mother, chances are that she is.
89.242.29.125 (
talk)
17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
immagine this, you find a wormhole connecting a point in the past with the future. near the worm hole is a dollar. you pick up the dollar and throw it into the future end. now when you find the worm hole it has two dollars in front of it. you pick both up and repeat the process.soon you'll be very rich.what concerns me is that this can be done with anything. by this means you can in a sense create mass or produce exponentional amounts of energy. if this is done with energy would there eventually be a really big explosion from the infinite loop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.221.127 ( talk) 03:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If you through one dollar into a wormhole and waited X amount of years, the dollar would re-appear (one dollar, not two)
That is probably impossible, given that wormholes are designed to travel space-time, not copy items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.94.53 ( talk) 11:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You will have zero dollar because the dollar that you just threw into the wormhole would appear in the past but would end up going into a completely different parallel universe. The guy who threw it into the wormhole is not the same guy receiving the dollar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.11.81 ( talk) 06:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Time travel will certainly become a reality; all things the human mind can comprehend can be accomplished. The claim that only photons can travel at the speed of light will be ridiculous to a first year student in the year 3008. Ask almost anyone on the planet 108 years about travelling from New York to San Francisco in 8 hours and they would have said its impossible. Ask someone 508 years ago about travelling 70 miles in one hour and they would have said thats impossible. Any problem is solvable given enough time and resources. The atom did not even exist in the year 1744, at least not to scientists of the day, yet in 1945 we smashed a few together over Japan with spectacular results. One new discovery leads to discovering something else which will lead to travel faster than the speed of light. If the human brain can think it, then it can be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.44.1.69 ( talk) 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
We could evolve into creatures that can convert mass into energy somehow and jump to moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.21.181 ( talk) 10:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There are some physicists that think (sorry, no citations) time travel is not possible because time has no dimension. Since there is no there to go back to, or to go forward to, any talk of time travel is silly.
To be complete, this article should add a contravening section with this point of view. Shawncorey ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider, if all moments in existance are said to be like a strip of 4-D film, then pray tell me who made the film strip and WHEN? secondly tell me how any of those moments can be considered by anyone as THE present moment? thirdly tell me what is moving? all those moments would appear static to a godlike being, yet we are fully aware of motion and that would not happen unless we were somehow more than 4 dimensional and moving through all these moments... and if that were so, it would mean that we were not human, but some sort of omni-dimensional soul moving through all those souless bodies statically awaiting our presence. And while that may be possible, it does not seem very likely! Jiohdi ( talk) 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Time travel is possible. And I have already proved myself right because we are travelling forward through time right now. If we can go forward, why not backwards? We just need to find out how to do it first. —Preceding unsigned
comment added by 222.153.21.181 ( talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this section is wrong. It is based on the assumption that the Earth does not undergo any acceleration. Its argument of relative velocity is overshadowed by the accelerations. The first acceleration is angular acceleration; the Earth is spinning. If I were to go back 12 hours in time (and ignore the other accelerations), I would end up on the opposite side; same latitude but 180 degrees difference in longitude. Not only that, the relative velocity of the place where I "started" would be 180 degrees from when I started. If I were to go back 6 months, the Earth would be on the opposite of the Sun and its velocity would be 180 degrees different. To come up with a successful argument, you would have to use general relativity, not special relativity.-- Shawncorey ( talk) 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, gone-- Mr. Shawn H. Corey ( talk) 00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I cannot.
Nor, you little worm, can you blame me for the lack of physics that agree with your imagination.
The paragraph is wrong...and it is gone.-- Mr. Shawn H. Corey ( talk) 04:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
after seeing mention of this on Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests i decided to take a look, while im not an expert on relativity As the inclusion of something is based in the requirements of Verifiability and Notability, Relativity is defiantly notable and therefore comes down to is it verifiable. At first look the source appears to be reliable, but as I don`t have access to it I cant really tell, but can accept on good faith
I can't see any specific reason for its removal unless can be demonstrated that the cited source is not reliable or does not say what is stated in the article.
also the argument itself is not just dependent on relativity (general or special) but also the "method of time travel" involved and how that effects the start and end points, as ending up elsewhere makes the assumption that the time travel process does not take any such effects into account.
You might want to ask at WikiProject Relativity for someone more knowledgeable.
but as a general point stated in Verifiability wikipedia relies on is verifiability, not truth.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true
-- Firebladed ( talk) 13:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've read a large amount of scientific articles including this one, that deal heavily with many concepts such as relativity and physics. In many places the article goes to and fro these subjects which can make it a bit confusing for a reader who does not have much of an understanding of the subjects (Such as myself). I know some basics about relativity, but as I do not have a college education on the subject can only guess what certain sentences mean.
I think I speak for me, and many others, when I ask if there's a template or tag we can add at the beginning of the article saying something like "Sections of this article may not be clear for readers without background knowledge of general relativity. Wikipedia has an introduction article to the subject here" just to let possible readers know that if they don't understand much of it, they need to read up more on that underlying subject. There seems to be a template for everything else from not enough sources, to wrong tone for the article. Surely it would be helpful to create one to let readers know what background information they need to understand?
And don't tell me that only people who already knew that background information would read the article, come on, the specifics of time travel can be interesting to a variety of people whether they have a degree in physics or not.
Thanks, Cody-7 ( talk) 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't care what you here, I think there is no such time as "time traveling." It is just a figment of people's imaganation. First of all, if you understand how time works, something happens that CAN NOT BE RE DONE. Period. It is permanant. That being said, the future is being made the minute you are reading this. I don't think the future is going on RIGHT NOW. YOU are CREATING the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.217.110 ( talk) 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
An alternate time CAN also be an alternate universe.If I went back in time and killed my father before I was born.I MIGHT go to a universe where my father isn't dead,and I will be erased from my universe (unless I was already born) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.155.99 ( talk) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have only sckimmed through all the current threads but it has occured to me that there is little (or perhaps even no) mention of time travel in relation to religous beliefs, and in particular to God. Since fictional and philosophical accounts of (potential) time travel are at least partly accounted for it would only seem fair to at least mention scriptural accounts of time, also a greater balance would be allowed for being that religous answers to questions of time can and indeed sometimes do differ from scientific responses.
Monothestic religions, and perhaps too others, beilieve that God is the creator of both time and Space, of the laws too of both time and Space, and consequently also the creator of time-space, even in its modern conception. For Muslims time travel is already possible, though not necessarily for humans - it is explicitly mentioned in the Holy Koran that since Alla is omnipresent and is able to be in all things in all times he is able to move faster than the speed of light, indeed faster than anything that it is possible for the human imagination to realise, faster even than our perception of time - it also talks in deapth in the Koran about the relativity of time as we percieve it, that what seems like a thousand years to us is only a day or less to Alla.
The greeks themselves had many gods (although given Zeus, their god of gods this is not tottaly true) and indeed they themselves had a god specifically for time itself, this god was able to appear both from the future and within it. There are, obviously, many other religous and spiritual interpretations of time travel and I would encourage anyone that feels able to summarise a general sketch of these belief systems to do so, if only for the purposes of balance.
There is a further point, though not too related, that I wished to raise, (in relation to the fiction literature), that the article mentions may refer to the earliest accounts of time travel - I would suggest, not wishing here to patronise the author, that the articles mentioned are typically white-western and show no real cultural variation, it would be laughable to think that a few European authors arround the 17th Century somehow stumbled upon such concepts as Time machines, the grandfather-paradox and other time-travel related notions - the merest glance through any well-stocked library would easily reveal discussions of time travels and references to them littered through the history books, from the Greeks to the Persians, from Prussia to the Ottoman and Turkish Empires, right through to the European and American writers. Perhaps, even arguably, time travel was known of, though is a less technically abstract way to many of the world's great ancient tribes - some aboriginal tribes, for example, smoked or consumed certain intoxicating herbs while melodically chanting, at least some of these tribes did believe that there visions were actually their spirits travelling outside of their body, so too outside of their time and space, where it has even been claimed that they were able to communicate with alien species that are yet to have evolved or that have already become exstinct. I have not here suggested that it is the case that these tibal people really time-travelled, though for all I know they may have, but it is claimed from various anthropoligists that they did believe in time-travel.
Because tribal societies did not rely on written language as we do now, or at least it would seem that some of us do, evidence of time-travel belief from pre-organised religous societies can be difficult to come across, nevertheless it should still be at least reffered to. For one last example of a tribal belief in time-travel (note, for the spirit rather than for the body) I will tell you about the Hopi tribal phrophecy, the Hopi being one of the few remaining Native Indian tribes lefty alive in the Americas: Just in the last few years it was discovered by some scientific explorers that within certain Nevada desert rocks had been hidden the tribal drawings of the Hopi tribes, pictures of white men arriving in what looked like ships, carrying crosses, pictures of cars and squared houses and even planes too, this would not have been surprising except that acheologists dated the pictures to be pre-colonial, they even dated some of the images to be older than what they reffered to. This might be seen as evidence that the Hopi Spirits really could travel forwards to view a time of the future that was to come, but a little like Scruge in Dicken's a Christmas Carol they were not physically able to interact with the future but merely to spiritually observe. I am intesrested to ask others weather they think Phrophecies and visions of these kinds should be mentioned in the article.
Sorry my comments are a little long and wordy, i am fairly new to this site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.125.169 ( talk) 13:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Time is a continumm.We can "step" on any "moment" at "will". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.70.63 ( talk) 17:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Are there any theories on the safety of time travel? -- NEMT ( talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, its well known that when time travelling your safety is not guaranteed, especially when you push it to the limit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.16.89 ( talk) 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You could get lost in a completely different parrallel universe and never be able to return to your own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.21.181 ( talk) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If it's 40 years ago and she looks like your Mother, chances are that she is.
89.242.29.125 (
talk)
17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
immagine this, you find a wormhole connecting a point in the past with the future. near the worm hole is a dollar. you pick up the dollar and throw it into the future end. now when you find the worm hole it has two dollars in front of it. you pick both up and repeat the process.soon you'll be very rich.what concerns me is that this can be done with anything. by this means you can in a sense create mass or produce exponentional amounts of energy. if this is done with energy would there eventually be a really big explosion from the infinite loop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.221.127 ( talk) 03:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If you through one dollar into a wormhole and waited X amount of years, the dollar would re-appear (one dollar, not two)
That is probably impossible, given that wormholes are designed to travel space-time, not copy items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.94.53 ( talk) 11:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You will have zero dollar because the dollar that you just threw into the wormhole would appear in the past but would end up going into a completely different parallel universe. The guy who threw it into the wormhole is not the same guy receiving the dollar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.11.81 ( talk) 06:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Time travel will certainly become a reality; all things the human mind can comprehend can be accomplished. The claim that only photons can travel at the speed of light will be ridiculous to a first year student in the year 3008. Ask almost anyone on the planet 108 years about travelling from New York to San Francisco in 8 hours and they would have said its impossible. Ask someone 508 years ago about travelling 70 miles in one hour and they would have said thats impossible. Any problem is solvable given enough time and resources. The atom did not even exist in the year 1744, at least not to scientists of the day, yet in 1945 we smashed a few together over Japan with spectacular results. One new discovery leads to discovering something else which will lead to travel faster than the speed of light. If the human brain can think it, then it can be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.44.1.69 ( talk) 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
We could evolve into creatures that can convert mass into energy somehow and jump to moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.21.181 ( talk) 10:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There are some physicists that think (sorry, no citations) time travel is not possible because time has no dimension. Since there is no there to go back to, or to go forward to, any talk of time travel is silly.
To be complete, this article should add a contravening section with this point of view. Shawncorey ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider, if all moments in existance are said to be like a strip of 4-D film, then pray tell me who made the film strip and WHEN? secondly tell me how any of those moments can be considered by anyone as THE present moment? thirdly tell me what is moving? all those moments would appear static to a godlike being, yet we are fully aware of motion and that would not happen unless we were somehow more than 4 dimensional and moving through all these moments... and if that were so, it would mean that we were not human, but some sort of omni-dimensional soul moving through all those souless bodies statically awaiting our presence. And while that may be possible, it does not seem very likely! Jiohdi ( talk) 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Time travel is possible. And I have already proved myself right because we are travelling forward through time right now. If we can go forward, why not backwards? We just need to find out how to do it first. —Preceding unsigned
comment added by 222.153.21.181 ( talk) 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this section is wrong. It is based on the assumption that the Earth does not undergo any acceleration. Its argument of relative velocity is overshadowed by the accelerations. The first acceleration is angular acceleration; the Earth is spinning. If I were to go back 12 hours in time (and ignore the other accelerations), I would end up on the opposite side; same latitude but 180 degrees difference in longitude. Not only that, the relative velocity of the place where I "started" would be 180 degrees from when I started. If I were to go back 6 months, the Earth would be on the opposite of the Sun and its velocity would be 180 degrees different. To come up with a successful argument, you would have to use general relativity, not special relativity.-- Shawncorey ( talk) 17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, gone-- Mr. Shawn H. Corey ( talk) 00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I cannot.
Nor, you little worm, can you blame me for the lack of physics that agree with your imagination.
The paragraph is wrong...and it is gone.-- Mr. Shawn H. Corey ( talk) 04:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
after seeing mention of this on Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests i decided to take a look, while im not an expert on relativity As the inclusion of something is based in the requirements of Verifiability and Notability, Relativity is defiantly notable and therefore comes down to is it verifiable. At first look the source appears to be reliable, but as I don`t have access to it I cant really tell, but can accept on good faith
I can't see any specific reason for its removal unless can be demonstrated that the cited source is not reliable or does not say what is stated in the article.
also the argument itself is not just dependent on relativity (general or special) but also the "method of time travel" involved and how that effects the start and end points, as ending up elsewhere makes the assumption that the time travel process does not take any such effects into account.
You might want to ask at WikiProject Relativity for someone more knowledgeable.
but as a general point stated in Verifiability wikipedia relies on is verifiability, not truth.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true
-- Firebladed ( talk) 13:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've read a large amount of scientific articles including this one, that deal heavily with many concepts such as relativity and physics. In many places the article goes to and fro these subjects which can make it a bit confusing for a reader who does not have much of an understanding of the subjects (Such as myself). I know some basics about relativity, but as I do not have a college education on the subject can only guess what certain sentences mean.
I think I speak for me, and many others, when I ask if there's a template or tag we can add at the beginning of the article saying something like "Sections of this article may not be clear for readers without background knowledge of general relativity. Wikipedia has an introduction article to the subject here" just to let possible readers know that if they don't understand much of it, they need to read up more on that underlying subject. There seems to be a template for everything else from not enough sources, to wrong tone for the article. Surely it would be helpful to create one to let readers know what background information they need to understand?
And don't tell me that only people who already knew that background information would read the article, come on, the specifics of time travel can be interesting to a variety of people whether they have a degree in physics or not.
Thanks, Cody-7 ( talk) 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't care what you here, I think there is no such time as "time traveling." It is just a figment of people's imaganation. First of all, if you understand how time works, something happens that CAN NOT BE RE DONE. Period. It is permanant. That being said, the future is being made the minute you are reading this. I don't think the future is going on RIGHT NOW. YOU are CREATING the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.217.110 ( talk) 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
An alternate time CAN also be an alternate universe.If I went back in time and killed my father before I was born.I MIGHT go to a universe where my father isn't dead,and I will be erased from my universe (unless I was already born) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.155.99 ( talk) 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have only sckimmed through all the current threads but it has occured to me that there is little (or perhaps even no) mention of time travel in relation to religous beliefs, and in particular to God. Since fictional and philosophical accounts of (potential) time travel are at least partly accounted for it would only seem fair to at least mention scriptural accounts of time, also a greater balance would be allowed for being that religous answers to questions of time can and indeed sometimes do differ from scientific responses.
Monothestic religions, and perhaps too others, beilieve that God is the creator of both time and Space, of the laws too of both time and Space, and consequently also the creator of time-space, even in its modern conception. For Muslims time travel is already possible, though not necessarily for humans - it is explicitly mentioned in the Holy Koran that since Alla is omnipresent and is able to be in all things in all times he is able to move faster than the speed of light, indeed faster than anything that it is possible for the human imagination to realise, faster even than our perception of time - it also talks in deapth in the Koran about the relativity of time as we percieve it, that what seems like a thousand years to us is only a day or less to Alla.
The greeks themselves had many gods (although given Zeus, their god of gods this is not tottaly true) and indeed they themselves had a god specifically for time itself, this god was able to appear both from the future and within it. There are, obviously, many other religous and spiritual interpretations of time travel and I would encourage anyone that feels able to summarise a general sketch of these belief systems to do so, if only for the purposes of balance.
There is a further point, though not too related, that I wished to raise, (in relation to the fiction literature), that the article mentions may refer to the earliest accounts of time travel - I would suggest, not wishing here to patronise the author, that the articles mentioned are typically white-western and show no real cultural variation, it would be laughable to think that a few European authors arround the 17th Century somehow stumbled upon such concepts as Time machines, the grandfather-paradox and other time-travel related notions - the merest glance through any well-stocked library would easily reveal discussions of time travels and references to them littered through the history books, from the Greeks to the Persians, from Prussia to the Ottoman and Turkish Empires, right through to the European and American writers. Perhaps, even arguably, time travel was known of, though is a less technically abstract way to many of the world's great ancient tribes - some aboriginal tribes, for example, smoked or consumed certain intoxicating herbs while melodically chanting, at least some of these tribes did believe that there visions were actually their spirits travelling outside of their body, so too outside of their time and space, where it has even been claimed that they were able to communicate with alien species that are yet to have evolved or that have already become exstinct. I have not here suggested that it is the case that these tibal people really time-travelled, though for all I know they may have, but it is claimed from various anthropoligists that they did believe in time-travel.
Because tribal societies did not rely on written language as we do now, or at least it would seem that some of us do, evidence of time-travel belief from pre-organised religous societies can be difficult to come across, nevertheless it should still be at least reffered to. For one last example of a tribal belief in time-travel (note, for the spirit rather than for the body) I will tell you about the Hopi tribal phrophecy, the Hopi being one of the few remaining Native Indian tribes lefty alive in the Americas: Just in the last few years it was discovered by some scientific explorers that within certain Nevada desert rocks had been hidden the tribal drawings of the Hopi tribes, pictures of white men arriving in what looked like ships, carrying crosses, pictures of cars and squared houses and even planes too, this would not have been surprising except that acheologists dated the pictures to be pre-colonial, they even dated some of the images to be older than what they reffered to. This might be seen as evidence that the Hopi Spirits really could travel forwards to view a time of the future that was to come, but a little like Scruge in Dicken's a Christmas Carol they were not physically able to interact with the future but merely to spiritually observe. I am intesrested to ask others weather they think Phrophecies and visions of these kinds should be mentioned in the article.
Sorry my comments are a little long and wordy, i am fairly new to this site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.125.169 ( talk) 13:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Time is a continumm.We can "step" on any "moment" at "will". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.70.63 ( talk) 17:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)