nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Time travel then

AMKC

So what do the good people of After hours think? Is it possible and if it is could you go into the past and the future or could you go just one way?
My thinking of it is if it were possible that we could go anywhere in the past but as the future has not happened yet you could not go forward in time.

I think if it were/is possible that it would take a lot of power even more than is currently generated on the planet maybe something like a warp drive and that you would need to be going at the speed of light at least to time travel.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

TheValeyard

It's overrated. I'm still fixing the problems left by the other guys.

Also, time can be rewritten.

Hamsterchops

When the Doctor & Rose went back to 1987, he said...
"The past is another country. 1987's just the Isle of Wight".

filbert the fox

FFred wrote: »

Time travel to the future is theoretically possible if we can travel faster than the speed of light.

Stephen Hawking threw a Champagne party for time travellers in 2009, and didn’t release the invitations until after the party had taken place. If people had shown up, he hypothesized, it would be proof that time travel is real. Since people didn’t show up, time travel is not real, probably.

They obviously don't drink Champagne...

Junkyard Tom

FFred wrote: »

Time travel to the future is theoretically possible if we can travel faster than the speed of light.

You can't travel faster than the speed of light. We have already done experiments which prove that time is not constant.

Say you were 15 years old when you left Earth in a spacecraft travelling at about 99.5% of the speed of light (which is much faster than we can achieve now), and celebrated only five birthdays during your space voyage. When you get home at the age of 20, you would find that all your classmates were 65 years old, retired, and enjoying their grandchildren! Because time passed more slowly for you, you will have experienced only five years of life, while your classmates will have experienced a full 50 years.

nasa.gov

I don't understand it works, mind you.

Hercule Poirot

I reckon it will be cracked but it will be so far into the future that our time will be irrelevant

People usually throw out the old: "if time travel is possible then surely someone would've stopped Hitler!?" - no one has therefore it's not relevant to the future

Of course it could be that someone did stop Hitler but it turned out he was the lesser of two evils....

Stephen Fry has written a very good book with that scenario, Making History, if anyone's interested

BrokenArrows

It's already proven that time travel to the future is possible. They have already proved it with atomic clocks in orbit. The faster you travel the slower time is for you.

So if you were to travel at the speed of light for a little while and return to earth it would be in the future. However there is no way to pick a date. Traveling at the speed of light for 1 year would result in a 10 year advance on earth.

However it is certainly a one way trip.

If a theoretical wormhole existed, backward time travel would be possible assuming the wormhole didn't kill you. But wormholes are purely theoretical and again you wouldn't have any control over the date you arrived at.

[Deleted User]

FFred wrote: »

Time travel to the future is theoretically possible if we can travel faster than the speed of light.

Stephen Hawking threw a Champagne party for time travellers in 2009, and didn’t release the invitations until after the party had taken place. If people had shown up, he hypothesized, it would be proof that time travel is real. Since people didn’t show up, time travel is not real, probably.

Time travel into the future is 100% possible, even been proven. It doesn’t require travel faster than the speed of light (in very simple terms) it just constant acceleration towards the speed of light over a very large distance. The faster you track the slower time moves so if you travel very fast your clock moves slower than that if someone back on earth. Travel fast enough for long enough and you only get a little older while a lot of time passes on earth. When you arrive back you could be far in the future. It’s a one way trip though.

Edit: I didn’t read the whole thread and see this has been posted above.

Atoms for Peace

As anybody who's ever played C&C will tell you going back in time to kill Hitler is a very bad idea.

Cee-Jay-Cee

AMKC wrote: »

So what do the good people of After hours think? Is it possible and if it is could you go into the past and the future or could you go just one way?
My thinking of it is if it were possible that we could go anywhere in the past but as the future has not happened yet you could not go forward in time.

I think if it were/is possible that it would take a lot of power even more than is currently generated on the planet maybe something like a warp drive and that you would need to be going at the speed of light at least to time travel.

But but but if you can only go back as the future has not yet happened and you went back to say, 1991, the future has not yet happened for the people in 1991 yet you travelled there from their future.

So if a time traveller arrived today from the future how would you explain ‘the future has not yet happened’ part??

alan1963

My head hurts.

Mr. teddywinkles

IAMAMORON wrote: »

You need to get your hands on a Flux Capacitor. Ask your local long haired mad scientist, he should be able to get his hands on one for you. Happy travelling. Beware the space time continuum , be careful with it , it can play havoc. I once assassinated Maurice McDonald in the 1950's, I forget to demand his recipe for the Big Mac sauce, it took years to get out of that loop. Everyone was eating kebabs instead.

If you see an oxymoron while travelling backwards in time from the future you will need to hold your breath.

Think I seen one in b&q

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You can't travel faster than the speed of light. We have already done experiments which prove that time is not constant.

Say you were 15 years old when you left Earth in a spacecraft travelling at about 99.5% of the speed of light (which is much faster than we can achieve now), and celebrated only five birthdays during your space voyage. When you get home at the age of 20, you would find that all your classmates were 65 years old, retired, and enjoying their grandchildren! Because time passed more slowly for you, you will have experienced only five years of life, while your classmates will have experienced a full 50 years.

nasa.gov

I don't understand it works, mind you.

These things are always badly explained.

Junkyard Tom

Julie Dead Lettuce wrote: »

if you travel very fast your clock moves slower

Not to the guy travelling at great speed though. To him the watch is just operating as it should (I believe).

Force Carrier

Future Scientist: We are sending you to 1889. Your mission is to kill baby Hitler.
It is imperative that you are not side tracked by anything.

Henry Ford: Yes Sir.

Junkyard Tom

Franz Von Peppercorn II wrote: »

These things are always badly explained.

I think having a true understanding requires being fairly intimate with the mathematics that underpin it so that rules me out.

[Deleted User]

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Not to the guy travelling at great speed though. To him the watch is just operating as it should (I believe).

Correct, relative to a stationary clock it travels slower.

This is actually a real issue and were it not accounted for GPS wouldn’t work for example.

jaxxx

I hope not. If it were possible, to potential for harm would vastly outweigh the potential for good. In short: humans cannot be trusted so keep it out of our hands.

How would it work anyway? Would it operate by Back to the Future rules (one reality that gets replaced if something is changed in the past) or Endgame rules whereby new alternate realities would be created, with the original one in tact?

Baron Kurtz

McDermotX wrote: »

Of course, time travellers were never going to show up because it had already happened for them in their past, and from their perspective, no one attended for fear of contaminating their already established path towards the development of time travel technology years down the line. They're not going to get themselves suckerpunched by a rank amateur like Hawking.

That's Time Travel 101 FFS !, and someone like Hawking should have copped onto that rather than trying to trick said travellers.
It's travellers that do the tricking.

Ah, you can't outsmart traveller [carnival] folk. They're the cleverest folk in the world.

Time travel is a reality that satellites have to account for in order to maintain geosynchronous orbits.

GPS sats routinely update their clocks by 45,900 nanoseconds per day to account for their "time travel"

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

_Brian wrote: »

If it were ever possible we’d see people visiting from the future.

How do you know we don't?

Irish Guitarist

Travelling to the future is more plausible than travelling to the past. Time passes slightly more slowly for astronauts in space than it does on Earth.

https://www.sciencealert.com/in-space-scott-kelly-aged-more-slowly-than-his-brother-on-earth-and-here-s-why

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/23/sergei-krikalev-time-travel_n_4147793.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE7PJLKOO6G1RevOqZLy1TQHGPU65xmHzLBB3qtqG6c38QGho8p3HxIv_L0C9Xfw-HEsE4Y_jzvdA-brmVERL3WUJXhZCzSDZPqWInsVK9TbTJ42ltZrt1qfxefOtSG6qnuuKXIiDFpUT9fepE6XUBRYeRGG9PbvAQDVrOfyh2SM

d8491prj5boyvg

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I reckon it will be cracked but it will be so far into the future that our time will be irrelevant

People usually throw out the old: "if time travel is possible then surely someone would've stopped Hitler!?" - no one has therefore it's not relevant to the future

Of course it could be that someone did stop Hitler but it turned out he was the lesser of two evils....

Stephen Fry has written a very good book with that scenario, Making History, if anyone's interested

Hitler was stopped. Eventually.

TheValeyard

Leland Jealous Popgun wrote: »

Hitler was stopped. Eventually.

By Hitler.

TheValeyard

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

I reckon it will be cracked but it will be so far into the future that our time will be irrelevant

People usually throw out the old: "if time travel is possible then surely someone would've stopped Hitler!?" - no one has therefore it's not relevant to the future

Of course it could be that someone did stop Hitler but it turned out he was the lesser of two evils....

Stephen Fry has written a very good book with that scenario, Making History, if anyone's interested

Or it's because that could create a paradox. You could not go back in time to stop Hitler, because if you did, the reason for the time machine would not exist in the first place. You would eliminate your own reasons for creating the time machine.

Probably also be impossible to go back in time and say kill your grandad before your dad was born. Some event, incident would always stop you from carrying out the act.

And the other point......thanks to Red Alert, we all know what happens if you remove Hitler from the timeline. Joe Stalin launches a full scale invasion of Europe using Mammoth tanks.

d8491prj5boyvg

[HTML][/HTML]

TheValeyard wrote: »

By Hitler.

In anticipation of being stopped by others.

blinding

As we only learn from our mistakes we have to go through time to make them !

Its all a learning process .

Or a way over our heads TV Soap Opera for our Overlords !

Hector Savage

I don't know about time travel but I am convinced I stepped through a temporal wormhole - very local - once ...

Force Carrier

TheValeyard wrote: »

Or it's because that could create a paradox. You could not go back in time to stop Hitler, because if you did, the reason for the time machine would not exist in the first place. You would eliminate your own reasons for creating the time machine.

Multiple or infinite parallel time lines solves that.

Cordell

But they don't solve the problem you're trying to solve: if you go back to kill Hilter then you are creating an alternate timeline, but in your timeline nothing changes hence no motivation to do it in the first place.

TheValeyard

Force Carrier wrote: »

Multiple or infinite parallel time lines solves that.

That's not changing time, that's existing in a different timeline.