Note: (this will only let you go further in time slover than others)
Step 1: Go into space (with an atomic clock for proof)just near enough to a black hole to be highly effected by its gravity without getting sucked in(be careful lol)
Step 2: Stay there for a sufficant amount of time.
Step 3: Go back to Earth where there is another atomic clock.
That video is so stupid and pointless. Is it trying to say that; 1) someone in the past went to the distant past because he had a way to trime travel even though we do not currently 2) the person went to some random tomb and dropped his watch 3) the watch aged only 100 years when it is supposed to have aged 400 years Something doesn't seem right...
Kevin, even with his lack of a sense of humor, is correct. I'm a Physics major and can confirm that what most of you are talking about is the observation of time, not traveling through it.
Based on our current understandings, it's not possible except in very highly improbable scenarios using more energy than is produced by all humans on Earth in a year. Not saying it's impossible, but we still can't even explain what something as ubiquitous as gravity is.
wow, if you are Physics major you have to explain me a thing. if time is not a general timeline but a thing that can slow down or spped up depending on the gravity the speed and stuff, what's the point of the idea of time travel? I can understand time travel if it's like scrubbing in a timeline, but now...
It is not scientifically proven that gravity can slow time, it's one of Einstein's famous postulates that is so far proving to be true.
If you're truly interested in this subject, I would highly recommend A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. It's very non-technical and will explain all of these theories in easy to understand analogies.
If you're truly interested in this subject, I would highly recommend A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. It's very non-technical and will explain all of these theories in easy to understand analogies.
:O I have that book! I haven't read it though. also, I used to thought that all the relativity postulates were proven when they saw that the star change position when there is an eclipse and they proven the relativity. is that wrong?
On one of my earlier posts, the arguement on page 2, Yeah, I'd be suprised if we could even travel 75% of lightspeed. I just meant in future times, if we advance that much.
"Time" (reaction processes at the smallest scale) seems to be affected by gravity. I remember our physics teacher saying that for the classes that are some floors above us, time goes by faster than on our floor, because they're further away from earth. Of course these are such infinitesimal differences that we don't notice a thing. But it seems that chemical and quantic processes are influenced by gravity. Of course there is no absolute, no timeline, no way to invert these exact processes, so no way to 'travel back in time'.
I have my own theory: 1.I believe that every mila second is going through a warphole so small we are unable to see it 2.By reversing the effects of it it would go backwards through the warpholes 3.Youve brought the world back in time 4.I dont know how to bring 1 person back in time just the whole world YAY MY THEORY ACTUALLY WORKED.......you mightve had to reply a day in your life remember?But it was because of me, a loyal fan of Efanasaurous
Then why is it that some things seem to go by much faster than other things, regardless of where you are? I think that our perspective of time goes beyond the physical world. It's also how we feel in our state of mind. As I said before, yet in a different topic...
That is quite irrelevant, we know humans make bad clocks and that our emotions and a variety of factors affect our perception of time. Getting hyperactive or drunk can make it feel like time is going slower or faster but getting drunk won't actually make a watch you're wearing tick faster relative to observers.
IF, time travel was possible, wouldn't humans be time travelling now? NO, BECAUSE IT AIN'T POSSIBLE!
That it an argument against time travel to the past. But it's been shown that the passage of time is affected by gravity, so a clock at higher altitude ticks a tiny bit faster than a clock at lower altitude. This obviously ins't an instantaneous form of time travel where you get from A to B in an instant, just faster progression to the future for one object compared to another.
The idea of time travel is that you get from point A to point B without having to go through any space in between.
I thought the idea of time travel is to stay at point A, and go backwards or forwards in time. Since going backwards is impossible (due to the impossibility to revert the processes) and going forwards isn't either (due to the yet-non-existence of 'future', time travel is impossible.
The thing with gravity is that the speed at which 'time' advances differs with different gravity. So you kinda have zones with slower and faster processes; slower near huge masses, faster away from them. Sumfing like that..
