Staredit Network

This is about the same as the grandfather paradox. If you go back and shoot your grandfather, then you never got born, which means your grandfather never got shot, which means you did get born- whoops, causality loop. As far as I can tell, the best way to reconcile this is to assume that the universe you come from is not the same universe you modified.

Not necessarily. It's possible that we can never go back in time, but that something else can.

That pretty much sums it up on the subject of ghosts. ;P

But wasn't that paradox fixed when an episode of futurama proved that if the grandmother is still alive then the timeline is still in order and to add onto that if the grandmother was impregnated before the grandfather got shot would the future son still live?

Hm... I saw something interesting the other day.

Apparently, there is a theory that states that electrons take multiple routes to get places (and apparently they've proven it). Theoretically, every time this happens, an alternate reality is created. If you travel back in time, you jump over to an alternate reality.

Thoughts?

So what you are saying that if someone traveled back in time, life for that person would be different then the way they lived that same time but before they went back in time.

Could be, but I'd say most alternate realities were created by a single electron taking 2 different paths with the same result, so most realities would most likely be nearly identical.

Ya, but just think of all the posibilities. Like someone before decided to stop at a yellow light. But this time they decided to try and get through causing an accident. There must have been a million people in the world that were in that same position, one could have a different decision. This could cause death and change someones life dirastically.

If there can be time travel I beleive that every time a person went back he created a alternate reality so thats why we have enver seen people come back through a time machine. Also Killer cow thats the back to the future theory basically.

Apparntly, the molecules (or atoms, or electrons, I forget, but it was something very, very small) in our universe are far enough apart for many other (very small thing that I can't remember name of currently) could fit in the space between, so there could be multiple different dimensions on different planes that we can't see that exist in the same space as ours. Wow, that was a very long sentence.

I thought of this before, but now that you say that I wonder if aliens live among us on our planet in the same area that we just cant see them or they cant see us. But they have a different planet under their feet. Wierd to think about!

There already are aliens living among us, and you can see them quite easily (ponder that, it'll come to you ). Also, would they really be considered aliens if they live in the exact same places as us?

To add onto that alien really means a resident in a near by place so I guess thats were

True but they could be aliens because we dont know that they are there. They could be so close to us but be the furthest from us because we can never see them or touch them or know their actually alive.

I would see the aliens as noot being relatives, but people from a completely diffrent place because they really are if they can be walking were we are but never seeing them.

I think it would have to be very rare for aliens to live in this same area we do, just think of all the places they could. How would they pick the exact same spot as us?

That is correct, but that's not the scenario the Grandfather Paradox deals with, and for the purposes of this discussion it's not very useful.

I think it's primarily photons they have problems with (the famous two-slits experiment), but at any rate this is still not a problem so long as the Universe stores its entire history somewhere.

One thing quantum mechanics does mean, though, is that if you go back in time and make absolutely no changes (which is impossible but let's assume you do it), the outcome might still be different. Sort of like how sometimes you watch a StarCraft replay and something different happens than what actually happened the first time around.

But if this is the case, then presumably we'd be much more likely to exist in one of those alternate universes than in the one 'seed' universe that created the first time travellers. Infinitely more likely, in fact. So assuming this would be a gross violation of the Copernican Principle.

Everyone thinks of aliens as creatures that look like we do.

They could be little bugs or very big, just because or size is normal to us doesnt mean that they are just lke us. They dont have to have a nose, two eyes, a mouth. Their physical structure could be a lot different. They could also be a mile tall but since their planet is huge they think that there avergae size is normal, or they could be very tiny. People also seem to think that they are going to be way farther along in the tech world. This may not be true, every movie out there make them about the same size of us and about the same looking. And they are always above us tech wize. They have unbeatable droids or tripods. But they could just be creating some type of weapon that shoots like our gun. We could be like hey we have a bomb and kick their but. Or they could be like 50 feet tall and see or bomb and catch it with one of their napkins! Everything changes when we get off the planet! People just make movied based on what they see the most.

I would think we would be a alternate universe, but how is it that we are 100% the alternate universe and not the seed? And what is the Copernican Principle? And what makes people think that his principle is right besides the fact that we cant prove it wrong?

Time travel is impossible because of two simple laws. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Mass cannot be created or destroyed.

Upon traveling to a different point in time, you will be a new addition of mass to that time frame along with the kinetic, potential, chemical and electromagnetic energy that you have. I know not what would happen if either law is broken, but initial thought brings me to breaking the curve of the space-time continuum and creating an equivalent of a Black Hole but that of energy. Since you come with new energy, already existing energy will be transfered to and from you, but since your energy came out of nowhere, something will then become unbalanced, creating the impossible, 0 energy on a particle, wave or object or the contrary, infinite energy on it.

Thus the Universe or time frame you head into will collapse and essentially you never traveled through time. That and the amount of energy to move through time, keeping your matter intact is infinite since to stop time from your relative point of view you need to go at the speed of light, only of which waves and photons can achieve such ratio of energy.

What about getting a object to travel into the future by making it so its molecules stop moving? I had a earlier post saying this, but everyone hates the thought.

Stopping the molecules from moving. Okay, how would you do this? And how would that make it move into the future?

Wow... Nice theory. It was simple enough for me to understand it (and in case you forgot, I'm only an 8th grader), but complex enough to get your point across. BUT, we're assuming time travel is possible in this thread, for the sake of disscusion. Which reminds me, we need a new time travelling question. Anyone have an idea?

i read from my science 10 textbook that processes occuring in nuclear bombs destroy matter and convert it into energy.

if that means anything to anyone...

No, in Science, rules an laws own everything. There is a statement: Matter cannot be created or destroyed in a chemical or physical change. Alsi: Energy cannot be creted or destroyed in a chemical or physical change. I think there are some other words in them but that is all you need to know.

But matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa, therefor the universe never gains or loses any of its total amount of "stuff", but said stuff can change into many forms.

I have a counter for Beer's argument, though. I'm no scientist here, so if there's a hole in my rebuttal feel free to point it out (a hole in a reBUTTal? ;p). In three dimensional space, there 3 possible physical directions for any matter to move in. Since matter can't be in the same place at once (new electron theories aside), if something is moved to a new location, then it now occupies its current space and not the space it once did. Nothing gained, nothing lost, only moved. Now if you consider time to be a "fourth direction" for fourth dimension theories, then a body traveling along the "time direction" can't be in two different places. Therefor, if something were to move forwards or backwards in time, they would no longer be at their starting point, and instead occupy their new space at a different "location" on the time scale. Once again, nothing is either gained of lost, only moved. The time traveller is no longer in his native time, and no longer occupies its space, but is now taking up space in a different sector of time.

For this to be true, we must theorize that all time exists simultaneously everywhere in the universe (and I think there are many theories that believe this), and we only happen to be gradually moving in one direction which is from the past to the future. I guess that's the path of least resistance, which is what systems of any kind seek to use. But by expending the extra effort, once can "move" from one time location to another.

I hope that made sense. It sounds right in my head, so if you need me to be clearer, say so. ;p

Its theorized that when you compress something enough it stops the molecules from moving. When you compress air it turns into a liquid and then into a solid and the molecules in a solid move less and ones in air move more. So thus by making the molecules stop moving you freeze the object in time, but when you compress something it gets colder and could not protect human life because of compression and coldness.