[Political Interest]

I have been thinking a while and I also saw something similair to this by General Tallonious.

I have always been fascinated by the possibility of time travel for many years now however I one day came to conclusion.
Time is a tool that was developped ages ago. However it now has become a property of relativity etc. But if time was invented as a way to tell people when to do things etc what happend before it?.

Before Time was invented people lived life as it came. So I have a theory what if existence is a time void there is no such thing as time it is only used to help the world so it is a tool alot like Teslas or Newtons.

So if it is merely a tool it is not part of space or existence therefor time travel is impossible because we are all in one frame of time because time does not exist.

[Ásatrúar]

Time is relative to the speed you are going relative to someone relatively standing still... or something.

Travel up to the speed of light and you will time travel, relatively.

[Gustav Fluffy]

Physicists will tell you that time does exist, and it's properties are built into the way in which the fabric of the universe interacts... or something like that.

A philosopher, however, may tell you that time is a mental creation

The idea of hours and minutes is a human creation that aims to rationalise time. Just because these units have not always existed does not mean that humans have developed time - the units are just a way for us to comprehend time.

Think about this - if time travel was possible, we would already know, because people would have come back in time - the gravest mistake man could ever make.

[Vivisekt]

Time doesn't exist in the way that we think it does. It's not a linear construct, like we percieve it to be, but more of a flat, transient phenomena. It is always reletive to the point of observation. As for time travel, or what we would consider time travel, i suppose it might be technically possible although you wouldn't really be traveling through time per se. Just changing your reletive perspective.

It's difficult to explain. Don't think of the concept as moving forwards or backwards, but rather, stepping sideways to a degree. Since time is nonlinear, we likely exist in a consistant "moment", which means everything that has happened, will happen, or could possibly happen, is happening now - just in a slightly different (but overlayed) space.

[enLight]

Well this is the way I see. When deconstructed down to the bare bones, the esscence of time is the moments that exist from birth to death (or with inanimate objects, creation to destruction/start to finish). Time as we know and use in everyday life, is just our measurement system to coordinate and organized our activities during those moments.

When it comes to time travel and the like, my brain starts to hurt. Theoretically trying to explain how at the same time some could exist and not exist (ie. traveling to the past) is very hard, and almost impossible to do.

I find Vivisekt's view of "changing your relative perspective" to be very interesting. I have a question. If we all exist in the moment, and somehow manage to change our perspective, wouldn't we still be viewing the same "moment", just from a different angle? And if that's the case, we really can't visit the past or future, because they are outside of the moment.

[smashthestate]

Time is not any different than any of the other dimensions: height, width, depth.

When you observe something, you observe it in four ways. You observe it in the four dimensions. You observe its physical placement, motion, etc. and you also observe when in time it exists.

Man's way of measuring and dividing time does not change time in any way. And, as was stated, time is not static. As the velocity of an object is increased, especially nearing the speed of light (c), then the time of that object to an "at rest" observer would appear to be almost stopped, or very, very slow. However, to the perception of that object, time would seem unchanged.

[Vivisekt]

I have a question. If we all exist in the moment, and somehow manage to change our perspective, wouldn't we still be viewing the same "moment", just from a different angle? And if that's the case, we really can't visit the past or future, because they are outside of the moment.

I will attempt to explain: The possible past and the possible future are both within the 'transient, temporal moment' (nothing is outside of it), but our perspective prevents us from interacting with them. From our current perspective, we only observe part of it. If we were to somehow change our perspective to align with another part of the 'temporal moment' (ie, some event and place in the possible past or possible future), then we would ceace to observe the "present" and would have effectively "time traveled" to whatever reletive point we aligned with. Although it would be important to note that there would be an astounding number of perspectives to "step over to", given that under this theory every possible event that can occour, ever did occour, or will occour, is occouring.

Time is not any different than any of the other dimensions: height, width, depth.

False. Time, like Gravity, is theorised to be transient - unlike height width and depth.

As the velocity of an object is increased, especially nearing the speed of light (c), then the time of that object to an "at rest" observer would appear to be almost stopped, or very, very slow. However, to the perception of that object, time would seem unchanged.

Speed does effect our adherence to spacetime, yes. There have been experiments that have verified this - by placing clocks in supersonic jets that were synched with ground clocks, and then proceeding to move at supersonic speeds. The clock on the supersonic jet lost sync with the ground clock by minutes to the negetive (ie, it ran slower). The faster a body is moving, the slower time moves in relation to it (or, more accurately, the less of an effect time has on the object).

[smashthestate]

False. Time, like Gravity, is theorised to be transient - unlike height width and depth.

All dimensions are (can be) technically transient, EVEN height, width, and depth.

In fact, this is proving to be especially obvious when dealing with quantum theory.

[enLight]

The possible past and the possible future are both within the 'transient, temporal moment' (nothing is outside of it)

In other words, the moment would consist of all the collective time from the begining of the Universe until its end (I guess assuming that it will end).

I pretty much understand what you mean, but it still hurts my brain.

[Vivisekt]

In other words, the moment would consist of all the collective time from the begining of the Universe until its end (I guess assuming that it will end).

Now you've got it.

All dimensions are (can be) technically transient, EVEN height, width, and depth.

In fact, this is proving to be especially obvious when dealing with quantum theory.

Not really, no. String theory has suggested nothing to the effect of mundane depths of perception actually being transient in the way that time and gravity are believed to be.

[smashthestate]

Not really, no. String theory has suggested nothing to the effect of mundane depths of perception actually being transient in the way that time and gravity are believed to be.

String theory? Is that the document that is now used to validate all scientific theories as correct or incorrect? I know more than well what string theory is, but I assure you, it's not the ultimate answer to all of our physical questions. It's purely theoretical.

[Vivisekt]

String theory? Is that the document that is now used to validate all scientific theories as correct or incorrect? I know more than well what string theory is, but I assure you, it's not the ultimate answer to all of our physical questions. It's purely theoretical.

Uh huh... which quantum mechanical theory, in specific, are you reffering to when you claim that standard dimensions besides time (length width depth) are transient (ie exist across, pass through, and coexist amongst all other dimensions)?

I've been studying quantum mechanical theory for years, and i've never heard of such a thing - which of course doesn't mean that such a thing does not exist, but i would be greatly interested in hearing about that specific theory if it does.

And as for string theory... it is on the forefront of quantm mathematical theory concerning the nature of dimensional relationship. It may be theoretical, but it is supported by mathematics of such elegance and complexity that i would be shocked if it was disproven. Most multi-verse theory isn't really supported by any specific maths. Only time will tell, of course... we shall wait and see what the results of the atom-smasher-equipped labs attempts to observe gravitons are... but until then, i consider string theory to be of the utmost importance in this regard.

[Denyingshadow]

Think about this - if time travel was possible, we would already know, because people would have come back in time - the gravest mistake man could ever make.

But then think about this. If man DID come back in time and change something, we would have a clue about it even happening. We would continue living the way we did, becuase we would never know that anything changed. From our perspective, it would be the way it has always been. Kind of hard to explain, but this is kind of shown in the move Timeline, where first the people are in the present and uncover various things and wonder about them, then get sent back in time just to uncover that it was THEY that did those things, and that because they went back in time, the changed history, but, of course, no one noticed it because they couldn't. The only way one COULD notice a change would be if they were above and beyond the bounds of time or if they managed to somehow sidestep out of our linear view and be able to watch what happens and how it changes. Rather confusing...