<p>Ron Mallett</p>
<p>Anyone here heard of him? Is he being actually legitimate with his blueprints?
I'm utterly mesmerized by his work. </p>
<p>Check him out.</p>
<p>He's the reason why UConn is on my list of colleges :P
To be honest, I don't think his idea is gonna work. Supposing that the Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum Theory is true (which it most likely is), any particles that Ron Mallett sends to the past will go to a parallel universe - but there's no way to prove that. --- That would be the scenario if the time machine did work; but most likely, it will not work...</p>
<p>that sounds pretty awesome!</p>
<p>well, if he does this, then he changes everything between when his father died until now</p>
<p>i might not even be born if he saves his father lol</p>
<p>Methinks that if people from the future traveled back in time, we would already see them.</p>
<p>And wouldn't it suck to put yourself in limbo by dying in parallax?</p>
<p>^ we do see them, what do you think UFOs are, Time travelers from the future looking for some nice human steak, duh.</p>
<p>That's not how a time machine works... Ron Mallett himself said that the time machine can only send particles back in time up to when it was turned on, no farther. So, if it was turned on in January 1, 2010, then in the future, you can only travel back in time to January 1, 2010, or any time after that.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Supposing that the Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum Theory is true (which it most likely is), any particles that Ron Mallett sends to the past will go to a parallel universe
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>And the fact that such a universe would be exactly like our universe (presumably, unless I'm interpreting this wrongly) in the past, there could be universes in the "future" (again, unless I'm interpreting this wrongly), which makes it likely that not only causal determinism, but fatalism, is true in some sense, and that the "probabilistic" nature of quantum mechanics is actually determined by something.</p>
<p>Then again, stone_cutter says something completely different.</p>
<p>I personally don't believe that time travel is possible, but I'm no expert.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
^ we do see them, what do you think UFOs are, Time travelers from the future looking for some nice human steak, duh.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>I believe in UFOs, but they're just flying objects that I can't seem to identify. It's probably a UAV that's going to bomb your ass.</p>
<p>proletariat2: It is believed that if you travel to the past, you end up in a parallel universe exactly like the one you came from with one difference: you're in its past. You can stop WWII from happening in THAT universe but not in the one you came from. So basically, you can change history relative to you, but not the history relative to everyone else. So, yeah, I guess causal determinism is true in some sense.
Traveling into the future is the same as time dilation. If you have a speed relative to something, you are traveling into the future. All you need to do to travel into the future on a significant scale is go really fast (close to the speed of light), which requires enormous amounts of energy. So, time travel into the future won't get you in a parallel universe (if that's what you meant by universes in the "future").</p>
<p>I don't think it's possible... and even it was, I think it's unethical. What's done is done and you can't, or shouldn't, change it. I mean why should you get to keep your loved one alive at the risk of losing another's loved one. Why should you get to decide what history is changeable? It's too slippery of a slope...</p>
<p>Although I guess if true time travel ever did exist, none of us would know... For all we know WWIII could've happened and we just don't know it because somebody went back and changed things. </p>
<p>My brain hurts now.</p>
<p>It's FAR too fictional and theoric of a concept to even attempt to bring ethics into it. </p>
<p>"If you fold A, at a pressure of B, under conditions C then you can travel through time.</p>
<p>"We can't and never will be able to fold A"
"The pressure of B cannot be applied to A"
"Conditions C are independent from A"</p>
<p>"Oh...."</p>
<p>"Although I guess if true time travel ever did exist, none of us would know... For all we know WWIII could've happened and we just don't know it because somebody went back and changed things."</p>
<p>If by true time travel, you mean time travel to the past in your own universe, then no it doesn't exist, it's impossible...</p>
<p>"I mean why should you get to keep your loved one alive at the risk of losing another's loved one."</p>
<p>What are you talking about?</p>
<p>" It's FAR too fictional and theoric of a concept to even attempt to bring ethics into it. </p>
<p>"If you fold A, at a pressure of B, under conditions C then you can travel through time.</p>
<p>"We can't and never will be able to fold A"
"The pressure of B cannot be applied to A"
"Conditions C are independent from A"</p>
<p>"Oh...." "</p>
<p>If you're talking about time travel into the future, then you're wrong; time travel into the future is possible. It happens whenever you are in motion. Of course, it's on such a small scale, that you don't notice. But if you were going at a speed comparable to the speed of light, then yes, you would travel into the future. The flow of time is also effected by the strength of gravity. Time for someone on ground-level goes faster than time for someone on top of a mountain. Real life example: GPS satellites take that effect into account or else GPS navigation wouldn't work. </p>
<p>If you're talking about traveling into the past, then you're probably right...</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Traveling into the future is the same as time dilation. If you have a speed relative to something, you are traveling into the future. All you need to do to travel into the future on a significant scale is go really fast (close to the speed of light), which requires enormous amounts of energy. So, time travel into the future won't get you in a parallel universe (if that's what you meant by universes in the "future").
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>-_-
That's a cheap substitute for time travel. I mean, yes, time is different for you than for anyone else, but it's still continuous, and there is always only one "present" - it's how fast the present changes that differs. (If that makes sense - I'm not good at explaining.)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
proletariat2: It is believed that if you travel to the past, you end up in a parallel universe exactly like the one you came from with one difference: you're in its past. You can stop WWII from happening in THAT universe but not in the one you came from. So basically, you can change history relative to you, but not the history relative to everyone else. So, yeah, I guess causal determinism is true in some sense.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well, since you clarified the concept of time travel into the future, I suppose the question is still open, and causal determinism doesn't have to be true. I suppose, then, that we are in the universe farthest into the future, so what the future will be is still open.</p>
<p>"-_-
That's a cheap substitute for time travel. I mean, yes, time is different for you than for anyone else, but it's still continuous, and there is always only one "present" - it's how fast the present changes that differs. (If that makes sense - I'm not good at explaining.)"</p>
<p>I don't think time has to be different for you than anyone else. If two people have a velocity of 0 m/s relative to each other and are influenced by a gravitational pull of the same magnitude, then time goes at the same rate for them.
And time IS NOT continuous. It can slow down for you as you get closer to the speed of light, and can even STOP for you if you reach the speed of light, meaning when you are at the speed of light, you would be aging 0 seconds,
e.g. if you go from point A to point B at the speed of light (300 million m/s) and the distance is 300 million meters, it wouldn't take you 1 second to travel from point A to B. For YOU, it would take 0 seconds, since you were traveling at the speed of light, but for someone at rest looking at you, it would take you 1 second... I hope that makes sense...
In fact, at the center of black holes, it is belived that time completely stops (due to the enormous gravitational pull).</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
And time IS NOT continuous. It can slow down for you as you get closer to the speed of light, and can even STOP for you if you reach the speed of light, meaning when you are at the speed of light, you would be aging 0 seconds,
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>But we can't go at the speed of light. We can only go to just slightly below it. Even when time is "moving faster", it is still continuous; if you were to graph your total movement and the total amount of "time" - as perceived by a person moving 0 mph - the graph would be continuous no matter what speed you move at. The rate of change/derivative might not be constant, but there would be no "breaks" in the graph.</p>
<p>Well, we can't travel at the speed of light, but some particles can. So for us, yeah I guess time is continous.</p>
<p>Aren't there hypotheses that there are particles that can go over the speed of light, but not under it?</p>
<p>hmm... not that I've heard of. Fact: There is nothing in the Universe that can go faster than the speed of light.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think it's possible... and even it was, I think it's unethical.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, you fail.</p>