The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Ok, it's late at night and my computer seems to be crashing after every letter I type so bare with me on this. I'm going to explain why we can't travel into the future if time travel becomes a reality.
Firstly, you must understand that we exist in one timeline. What we're doing right now is the first of what we're doing that has ever been done. Ever. This explains why somebody hasn't come back through time and told us that we invent a time machine - we haven't done it yet! Since we're living at the very front of our timeline (we must be, somebody would have come back by now (either that or we don't invent a time machine in the future at all)) it means we can't go further foward because nothing has happened ahead of our time. If we could go foward, then destiny and fate would be proven to exist. If you go to 2020 and look yourself up, you'd be doing the same thing if you went back to your own year and waited the time difference (unless you interacted with your future self). As such, since we can't go fowards, fate and destiny don't exist.
The only way foward would be to appear in an alternate universe which has a timeline ahead of ours, but then you wouldn't time travel into your future but an alternate version of your future which, technically, is completely different to the one you exist in.
As such, when/if we invent a time machine, we can go back but not foward.
Lécture Êt Fin.
Firstly, you must understand that we exist in one timeline. What we're doing right now is the first of what we're doing that has ever been done. Ever. This explains why somebody hasn't come back through time and told us that we invent a time machine - we haven't done it yet! Since we're living at the very front of our timeline (we must be, somebody would have come back by now (either that or we don't invent a time machine in the future at all)) it means we can't go further foward because nothing has happened ahead of our time. If we could go foward, then destiny and fate would be proven to exist. If you go to 2020 and look yourself up, you'd be doing the same thing if you went back to your own year and waited the time difference (unless you interacted with your future self). As such, since we can't go fowards, fate and destiny don't exist.
The only way foward would be to appear in an alternate universe which has a timeline ahead of ours, but then you wouldn't time travel into your future but an alternate version of your future which, technically, is completely different to the one you exist in.
As such, when/if we invent a time machine, we can go back but not foward.
Lécture Êt Fin.
Page:
Dharav wrote:
, if you travel at the speed of light time stops
> for you.
> But, it is impossible to reach that speed. You get stuck on 99 99.99
> 99.999% or 99.99999999% but you can never reach 100%
Read the two figures you typed and the take a good look at the first again. See anything wrong with it?
Besides, its generally accepted in the science community that 99% without decimal places is as fast as you can go. The difference the decimals make are negligable.
, if you travel at the speed of light time stops
> for you.
> But, it is impossible to reach that speed. You get stuck on 99 99.99
> 99.999% or 99.99999999% but you can never reach 100%
Read the two figures you typed and the take a good look at the first again. See anything wrong with it?
Besides, its generally accepted in the science community that 99% without decimal places is as fast as you can go. The difference the decimals make are negligable.
But time is just waht we use to measure, well time. I do not think that the future is decided, but that we go day by day to make our own future. So if we did make some machine to time travel how would it work? It surely couldn't make someone speed up time by however much and they're in the future, because by this you're saying the future has already happened.
However by calling it the 'future' this suggests it has NOT already happened.
Aye, t'is an interesting topic.
However by calling it the 'future' this suggests it has NOT already happened.
Aye, t'is an interesting topic.
I've already said all I want to really, from what I have learnt I believe Time Travel to the future to be possible, it is just that we do not have the current technology, or technical know how to do it.
We know that to travel that fast would require an almost infinite amount of energy. We may think this does not exist, but 100 years ago, what would we have thought of the atomic bomb? I doubt anyone would want to volunteer for such an experiment - would you want to be stuck many years in the future? The earth may be destroyed by such a time, what would you do then? You couldn't return to this time, so you'd be doomed to spend your limited time floating in space.
It's one of the most interesting subjects I can think of, if you enjoy it, I suggest you read one of Hawkings 2 books, "The Universe in a nutshell" or "A brief history of time".
We know that to travel that fast would require an almost infinite amount of energy. We may think this does not exist, but 100 years ago, what would we have thought of the atomic bomb? I doubt anyone would want to volunteer for such an experiment - would you want to be stuck many years in the future? The earth may be destroyed by such a time, what would you do then? You couldn't return to this time, so you'd be doomed to spend your limited time floating in space.
It's one of the most interesting subjects I can think of, if you enjoy it, I suggest you read one of Hawkings 2 books, "The Universe in a nutshell" or "A brief history of time".
Does anybody want to have say?
Lindgren wrote:
> Geffdof wrote:
> Theoretically if you trsvel at the speed of light you wont age and
> can
> go to the future. Kind of like Flight of the Navigator.
>
> Also if you travel faster than the speed of light you can
> "view" the past because you will be ahead of the old light
> (and we see using light btw), but you would need a pretty long road
> and a fairly fast car to get to that sort of speed.
>
> It is scientifically impossible to travel faster than the speed of
> light, the higest speed that can be reached is 99% of the speed of
> light.
Yes, theoritically, if you travel at the speed of light time stops for you.
But, it is impossible to reach that speed. You get stuck on 99 99.99 99.999% or 99.99999999% but you can never reach 100%
> Geffdof wrote:
> Theoretically if you trsvel at the speed of light you wont age and
> can
> go to the future. Kind of like Flight of the Navigator.
>
> Also if you travel faster than the speed of light you can
> "view" the past because you will be ahead of the old light
> (and we see using light btw), but you would need a pretty long road
> and a fairly fast car to get to that sort of speed.
>
> It is scientifically impossible to travel faster than the speed of
> light, the higest speed that can be reached is 99% of the speed of
> light.
Yes, theoritically, if you travel at the speed of light time stops for you.
But, it is impossible to reach that speed. You get stuck on 99 99.99 99.999% or 99.99999999% but you can never reach 100%
I agree with what you're saying in most respects - but people could time travel forwards in that time would past at a much faster speed, while one person doesn't age.
Doesn't moving at the speed of light mean that the rest of the world (to you) would mvoe at a much faster pace, thus going through time a lot quicker.
Going backwards is just absurd, mind.
Doesn't moving at the speed of light mean that the rest of the world (to you) would mvoe at a much faster pace, thus going through time a lot quicker.
Going backwards is just absurd, mind.
Well, its very discouraging to see all of yu makinf fun of time travel.
Its is possible to go forwards in time, but not int the past. Even when you go forwards in time its only relatively.
Let me explain it - According to Dr. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, time slows down for an object as its speed increases. The more the velocity of the object, the less the speed of time, but it is inly for that object. Time runs smooth for all other places. So imagine two twin brothers. One of them becomes an astronaut, and has the previlige to travel in a "space exploration vehicle" or something like that, at a speed of about 70% that of light. So time slows down a lot for that astronaut, and when he returns after 2 months, he finds that his twin brother is now 20 years older than him. So, relatively you are in the future. And there is no way you can trave into past. It can also be said that those who have travelled in a Concorde are living in 0.05 seconds future. This theory has been proved right using nuclear clocks. Check the net for ir.
Its is possible to go forwards in time, but not int the past. Even when you go forwards in time its only relatively.
Let me explain it - According to Dr. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, time slows down for an object as its speed increases. The more the velocity of the object, the less the speed of time, but it is inly for that object. Time runs smooth for all other places. So imagine two twin brothers. One of them becomes an astronaut, and has the previlige to travel in a "space exploration vehicle" or something like that, at a speed of about 70% that of light. So time slows down a lot for that astronaut, and when he returns after 2 months, he finds that his twin brother is now 20 years older than him. So, relatively you are in the future. And there is no way you can trave into past. It can also be said that those who have travelled in a Concorde are living in 0.05 seconds future. This theory has been proved right using nuclear clocks. Check the net for ir.
MoJoJoJo wrote:
> In "The Langoliers" (I'm sure I've mis-spelled that) they go
> back in time, but the place is deserted. People have moved on, but
> the place is still there, waiting to be eaten. Yes, eaten. By little
> monsters.
that's pretty damn weird. It reminds me of that desert scene off beatlejuice.
> In "The Langoliers" (I'm sure I've mis-spelled that) they go
> back in time, but the place is deserted. People have moved on, but
> the place is still there, waiting to be eaten. Yes, eaten. By little
> monsters.
that's pretty damn weird. It reminds me of that desert scene off beatlejuice.
In "The Langoliers" (I'm sure I've mis-spelled that) they go back in time, but the place is deserted. People have moved on, but the place is still there, waiting to be eaten. Yes, eaten. By little monsters.
Lindgren wrote:
>
> It is scientifically impossible to travel faster than the speed of
> light, the higest speed that can be reached is 99% of the speed of
> light.
Yeah i know. im just being theoretical.
>
> It is scientifically impossible to travel faster than the speed of
> light, the higest speed that can be reached is 99% of the speed of
> light.
Yeah i know. im just being theoretical.
Page: