# Time Travel!



## ScruffStuff (Sep 8, 2010)

So I've developed a time travel theory today. Hear me out on this one.

The earth spins at around 700-900mph at the lattitude of the USA
So if I build an aircraft that can achieve such speeds, which is entirely possible
and travel westward
I'll be going back in time.

Ya followin' me camera guy?

Anyways, anyone else have any time travel ideas?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 8, 2010)

If matter is able to dissociate from time, but form a perfect link back in time to some point, then time travel is entirely feasible.

Of course, only if we account for all 4-equidistant time points.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 8, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> The earth spins at around 700-900mph at the lattitude of the USA
> So if I build an aircraft that can achieve such speeds, which is entirely possible
> and travel westward
> I'll be going back in time.


 
No.

I forget how, but one theory I heard for time travel involved light, and one could only travel back to when the machine was first made.

Most other theories I've heard though are retarded though.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 8, 2010)

Xenke said:


> No.
> 
> I forget how, but one theory I heard for time travel involved light, and one could only travel back to when the machine was first made.
> 
> Most other theories I've heard though are retarded though.



Matter cannot travel the speed of light. 

But using wormholes, we can send matter across a specific distance in far less time, increasing "speed", although not necessarily letting the object go the speed of light itself.


----------



## ScruffStuff (Sep 8, 2010)

You have to take into account the difference between eastern time and pacific time. If you travel from east to west at 4:00pm at the same speed as the earth is rotating, then it will still be 4:00pm when you get to the west coast. If you exceed the speed of the earth's rotation, then it could be earlier than 4:00pm when you arrive.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 8, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> You have to take into account the difference between eastern time and pacific time. If you travel from east to west at 4:00pm at the same speed as the earth is rotating, then it will still be 4:00pm when you get to the west coast. If you exceed the speed of the earth's rotation, then it could be earlier than 4:00pm when you arrive.


 
International date line.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 8, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> You have to take into account the difference between eastern time and pacific time. If you travel from east to west at 4:00pm at the same speed as the earth is rotating, then it will still be 4:00pm when you get to the west coast. If you exceed the speed of the earth's rotation, then it could be earlier than 4:00pm when you arrive.


That's not time travel.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 8, 2010)

I see what you did there.


----------



## Cam (Sep 8, 2010)

Wouldnt that only affect you clock wise?


----------



## ScruffStuff (Sep 8, 2010)

As long as you don't pass the date line, it should be fine, right?
And if you went West to East, you could accelerate time.


----------



## Stargazer Bleu (Sep 8, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> You have to take into account the difference between eastern time and pacific time. If you travel from east to west at 4:00pm at the same speed as the earth is rotating, then it will still be 4:00pm when you get to the west coast. If you exceed the speed of the earth's rotation, then it could be earlier than 4:00pm when you arrive.


 
Well the old blackbird could travel from the west coast to the east in around a hour or so. 2k mph+(mach3+)


----------



## Xenke (Sep 8, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> As long as you don't pass the date line, it should be fine, right?


 
Congrats, you can go at max one day back in time, if you ever move from that location, you gain time.


----------



## ScruffStuff (Sep 8, 2010)

The Blackbird is exactly what I was thinking of when I pondered this. That thing totally exceeds Earth's rotational speed, even at the equator.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 8, 2010)

You're not affecting time or traveling backwards in it, but rather just moving to a different location where they label if differently. There would be no point in going "back in time" like you're describing.


----------



## Jude (Sep 8, 2010)

Okay, I see.
Not really "time travel", but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 8, 2010)

JesusFish said:


> If matter is able to dissociate from time, but form a perfect link back in time to some point, then time travel is entirely feasible.
> 
> Of course, only if we account for all 4-equidistant time points.


 
already done


----------



## Trance (Sep 8, 2010)

Astronauts have traveled quickly enough, long enough, around the earth to have aged a measurably amount than those _on_ Earth.

>legitimate "time travel"<


----------



## Xenke (Sep 8, 2010)

Consider an flight with changes time zones 3 times.

Let's say by clock time you take off at 3:22pm and land at 4:31pm. According to clock time, it took only 1 hour and 9 minutes.

However, according the scientific standard of measuring time, it actually lasted 4 hours and 9 minutes.

Basically, clock time â‰  time.


----------



## ScruffStuff (Sep 8, 2010)

Yeah well. It's still fun telling online friends from the west that I'm from the future.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 8, 2010)

If you cross the International Date Line westward at precisely Midnight after 11:59:59.99 PM the day before your birthday, then you'll not have a birthday and thus won't age a year. :V


----------



## Xenke (Sep 8, 2010)

ArielMT said:


> If you cross the International Date Line westward at precisely Midnight after 11:59:59.99 PM the day before your birthday, then you'll not have a birthday and thus won't age a year. :V


 
Oh shit. I should do this to fit in with leap-year kids. :v


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 9, 2010)

Time is moving matter.
It can't stop, and can't go back.
Think of it as a light - it can't stop and can't go backwards - always continues straight, never changing it's course until it hits a mirror.
When we find the mirror in life, we will be able to time travel.


----------



## moon-drummer (Sep 9, 2010)

You need a singularity with enough density to warp space-time to the point where it inverts itself in order to go back in time. All you need to to do go forward in time is hang your ship near the speed of light, and the relativistic effects will do the rest when you slow back down.


----------



## LLiz (Sep 9, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> So I've developed a time travel theory today. Hear me out on this one.
> 
> The earth spins at around 700-900mph at the lattitude of the USA
> So if I build an aircraft that can achieve such speeds, which is entirely possible
> ...


 
When I went to the USA last year, I took off from Sydney at 10am in the morning, and arrived in LA at 6am on the same day... 4 hours earlier than I left (even after over 12 hours in the air). 

So my plan is to wait for one of your big sports events like the Super Bowl to happen, right at the exact end of the game I find out the results and straight away jump in a 747 and fly to LA, in theory arriving 4 hours before the end of the game. I will then proceed to make an extremely large bet on the outcome of said game. 

Totally fool proof.


----------



## Rebel-lion (Sep 9, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> The Blackbird is exactly what I was thinking of when I pondered this. That thing totally exceeds Earth's rotational speed, even at the equator.



Blackbired top speed of Mach 3.5


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 9, 2010)

Rebel-lion said:


> Blackbired top speed of Mach 3.5


 
Arrow's top speed is 9 mach

I heard about a missile faster than 9 mach, don't remember which

I know america's new ballistic missile is supposed to be 8 mach, so why does an anti ballistic missile gets to more than that


----------



## coward67 (Sep 9, 2010)

-Facepaw- You got it all wrong, the only way to travel in time is to bend time, ripple it, stretch it, drag it backwards and forwards using some sort of a machine with enough energy to change the fourth dimension. And we're not even sure that's possible.
Say you could travel at infinate speed... Run around the earth in a couple seconds and you will arrive a couple of seconds after you left but in actuallity, using einstein's rule, the journey would have taken you much much longer, giving you time to age, complete your project, write some music, anything! But this is not possible so at high speeds, the journey might take you a couple hours and you will arrive back home a couple hours after you left, meaning time moves as normal. You may have passed through several timezones but that doesn't mean you were moving through time.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Sep 9, 2010)

you silly
i'm always travelling through time
always looking forward
and sometimes i skip for a bunch of hours in my time machine
that's so hip |3


----------



## Rebel-lion (Sep 9, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Arrow's top speed is 9 mach
> 
> I heard about a missile faster than 9 mach, don't remember which
> 
> I know america's new ballistic missile is supposed to be 8 mach, so why does an anti ballistic missile gets to more than that


 
Space Shuttle Columbia on re-entry reached speeds of Mach 25, that was recorded 14 April 1981


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 9, 2010)

Rebel-lion said:


> Space Shuttle Columbia on re-entry reached speeds of Mach 25, that was recorded 14 April 1981


 
I am talking about stuff inside Earth.
Space shuttles can reach huge speeds when they take off, and when they return they can even get to much higher speeds. The speed of landing is high enough to crash and die.
And the new ballistic missile of the USA isn't supposed to get out of orbit like other ballistic missiles.


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Sep 9, 2010)

coward67 said:


> -Facepaw- You got it all wrong, the only way to travel in time is to bend time, ripple it, stretch it, drag it backwards and forwards using some sort of a machine with enough energy to change the fourth dimension. And we're not even sure that's possible.
> Say you could travel at infinate speed... Run around the earth in a couple seconds and you will arrive a couple of seconds after you left but in actuallity, using einstein's rule, the journey would have taken you much much longer, giving you time to age, complete your project, write some music, anything! But this is not possible so at high speeds, the journey might take you a couple hours and you will arrive back home a couple hours after you left, meaning time moves as normal. You may have passed through several timezones but that doesn't mean you were moving through time.



facepalm!

1)you cant "run" at infinite speeds

2)if you could "run" faster then the speed of light around the earth, then you would arrive before you left.

3)if you arrived before you left then that would create all sorts of shit, probably to your demise

4)by "einsteins rule" i assume your refering to the special theory of relativity.

5)we DO know how to "bend, ripple, stretch" time, as described by "einsteins rule", you just have to move, accelerate or be near something with a gravitational field.

read "the science of doctor who" for basic, non quantitative stuff, and if your feeling adventurous you could try reading feynman's "six easy and six not so easy pieces". you might then see why your wrong!


----------



## Wolf70 (Sep 9, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> So I've developed a time travel theory today. Hear me out on this one.
> 
> The earth spins at around 700-900mph at the lattitude of the USA
> So if I build an aircraft that can achieve such speeds, which is entirely possible
> ...



You'll be going back in time zones... not time.


----------



## Wolf70 (Sep 9, 2010)

Many people theorize that being to bend space/time with gravity would create a way to travel through time. Gravity effects the progression of time, not the time line itself. The higher the gravity in a area of space, the faster time moves there relative the rest of the universe. If your traveling at near the speed of light then you are escaping from almost all gravitational pull. This means that your space/time envelope is preceding at almost the slowest possible rate. In other words, a day for you would be hundreds if not thousands of years for the rest universe. This is only useful if you want to go to the future, there would be no way back and your not really "traveling" through time, just experiencing it at a different rate. You can travel through time because the past on longer exists and the future does not exist yet since that all take place in the same in the same space, but at different times.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 9, 2010)

Actually you know, time is just a term that our brain translates.
For example, when you have fun, you think the time goes on fast.
It may not go for other people, but your senses are going full speed.

If we make the brain think too fast, you will basically see everything not moving, and it would take billions of years until you'd actually feel anything.
If we make the brain think too slow, the body will almost not move at all, but your senses will see everything moving abnormally fast.
That's accelerating and stopping, but what about reversing?
Your brain can't compute mermory it doesn't have, so even if your brain went back in mermories, you wouldn't remember everything and the only thing seen would be a stuck image with no details.
What about inserting mermories? The brain has limited data storage, so inserting a whole centuary is a no - go.

fail


----------



## Wolf70 (Sep 9, 2010)

CynicalCirno said:


> Actually you know, time is just a term that our brain translates.
> For example, when you have fun, you think the time goes on fast.
> It may not go for other people, but your senses are going full speed.
> 
> ...



Perfect example of this would be in a dream stat. Only seconds pass in reality, but brain can perceive them as hours or days.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 9, 2010)

Wolf70 said:


> Perfect example of this would be in a dream stat. Only seconds pass in reality, but brain can perceive them as hours or days.


 
Or actually, vice versa

When dreaming, you see usually 40-45 minutes of a dream while the actual time goes by hours.


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Sep 9, 2010)

Wolf70 said:


> Many people theorize that being to bend space/time with gravity would create a way to travel through time. Gravity effects the progression of time, not the time line itself. The higher the gravity in a area of space, the faster time moves there relative the rest of the universe. If your traveling at near the speed of light then you are escaping from almost all gravitational pull. This means that your space/time envelope is preceding at almost the slowest possible rate. In other words, a day for you would be hundreds if not thousands of years for the rest universe. This is only useful if you want to go to the future, there would be no way back and your not really "traveling" through time, just experiencing it at a different rate. You can travel through time because the past on longer exists and the future does not exist yet since that all take place in the same in the same space, but at different times.


 
true-ish, but curved spacetime is really only an observation of the effects in different parts of spacetime. also, lets say that we have someone on earth, and someone moving with a relative velocity of on earth has a clock that ticks every second (relative to the guy on earth), the guy in the space ship would see the clock tick about 300,000,000 times per second (relative to the space ship)! which is pretty damn fast.


----------



## Wolf70 (Sep 9, 2010)

anotherbloodywolf said:


> true-ish, but curved spacetime is really only an observation of the effects in different parts of spacetime. also, lets say that we have someone on earth, and someone moving with a relative velocity of on earth has a clock that ticks every second (relative to the guy on earth), the guy in the space ship would see the clock tick about 300,000,000 times per second (relative to the space ship)! which is pretty damn fast.



This experiment has been done before. When ever NASA launches a shuttle or new satellite the clocks are synced before launch. Since the less gravity present the slower the relative flow of space/time is, the clock in orbit will fall behind the one on earth. From space the clock on earth will appear to be moving to slow. From earth the clock in space will appear the be moving to fast. The clocks are both correct about the time though because they accurately display the amount of time that has passed where they are.


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Sep 9, 2010)

i forgot about this earlier, it might mean that you could travel faster then the speed of light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
this would inevetably mean that you would be traveling backward in time, however, the contents of the "ship" would be traveling forwards in time, some pretty midfucking shit!



Wolf70 said:


> This experiment has been done before. When ever NASA launches a shuttle or new satellite the clocks are synced before launch. Since the less gravity present the slower the relative flow of space/time is, the clock in orbit will fall behind the one on earth. From space the clock on earth will appear to be moving to slow. From earth the clock in space will appear the be moving to fast. The clocks are both correct about the time though because they accurately display the amount of time that has passed where they are.


 
true, although this is harder to do the maths for because its moving, so you have to throw in some more variables and shit, also, other gravitational fields (from other planets) ballses up the maths a bit.


----------



## Wolf70 (Sep 9, 2010)

anotherbloodywolf said:


> i forgot about this earlier, it might mean that you could travel faster then the speed of light:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
> this would inevetably mean that you would be traveling backward in time, however, the contents of the "ship" would be traveling forwards in time, some pretty midfucking shit!
> 
> ...



No matter where you go in the universe you are always in a gravitational field. In fact every single object in the universe exerts gravity on every other object no matter how far away. But when talking about time distortion those apparently insignificant field add up.

In this scenario the ship would be almost unaffected in terms of to distortion since the ship itself is not really the thing moving at a high speed. Also there are few theories on what would happen if an object went faster then the speed of light. One is that the ship would escape time complete so the ship itself would be experiencing no time and would perceive everything at a standstill and would not be able escape to from this effect. Another one is the even the strong nuclear force holding the atoms of the ship together would break about causing the ship to atomize or expand infinitely. If it expanded infinitely then it would not be able to leave it's current location since the expansion would continue from this object itself, keeping it in the middle no matter what.


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Sep 9, 2010)

anotherbloodywolf said:


> 1)you cant "run" at infinite speeds
> 
> 2)if you could "run" faster then the speed of light around the earth, then you would arrive before you left.
> 
> 3)if you arrived before you left then that would create all sorts of shit, probably to your demise



point number 3 pretty much sums up what you just said


----------



## Wolf70 (Sep 9, 2010)

anotherbloodywolf said:


> point number 3 pretty much sums up what you just said


 
No, you would be gone before you got back, it's just no one would able to tell since our eyes use light to perceive. The light reflecting off of the person would not have hit the other person eyes before the first got back. That way it would have appeared like no one had moved.


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Sep 9, 2010)

what i meant by it is that going backwards in time causes all sorts of controversy amongst scientists, as you demonstrated in your last long post, and arriving somewhere before you left could cause serious shit (if the going back in time didnt cause shit already) - granny paradox and all! thats why i dont like relativity and i really dont like the controversy around macro scale problems, such as a spaceship going back in time. thats why i go quantum 

edit: i just realised that this is my 100th post


----------



## Wreth (Sep 9, 2010)

See if you had a time machine, it would wouldn't work unless it was a teleporter aswell.


----------



## Zrcalo (Sep 9, 2010)

do you really want to know how to time travel?


do acid.


----------



## LLiz (Sep 10, 2010)

Wolf70 said:


> The higher the gravity in a area of space, the faster time moves there relative the rest of the universe.



You're on the right track but its the opposite, the closer you are to a gravitational field, the slower time goes. Think of it like this, if you're under the influence of the Earth's gravity than you're actually accelerating toward the Earth, acceleration actually exaggerates time dilation, therefore time is slower because you're accelerating. 



anotherbloodywolf said:


> i forgot about this earlier, it might mean that you could travel faster then the speed of light:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
> this would inevetably mean that you would be traveling backward in time, however, the contents of the "ship" would be traveling forwards in time, some pretty midfucking shit!



That's an interesting link, I wonder if it has any merit? Generally theories like this end up getting shot down in flames. This is one that I'd love to be true, because its always bothered me that when we eventually are able to travel between stars that we also have to throw away our conventional ideas of space and time. 

Here's a mind bender that you can try right now without warp drives. 

Next time you're on the street and you're seeing a car move past you, did you know that relative to you and the car, the back of the car is slightly in the future and the front of the car is slightly in the past?
(according to people in the car both ends are in perfect sync)

Also if you were to take an extremely accurate measurement of the length of the car while its driving past you, and at the same time whoever is in the car also takes an extremely accurate measurement, if you compare both measurements then yours would say that the car is slightly shorter than the measurement taken by the person who was in the car as it was driving past. 
Then when the car stops and is parked, if you take another measurement, you'd see that your measurement while the car is moving was shorter, and your new measurement would agree with the person who was in the car while it was moving. 

The above is true for anything that moves.


----------



## Cam (Sep 10, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> do you really want to know how to time travel?
> 
> 
> do acid.



LIES

That just makes you an old man when you look in a mirror, and then you trip on a couch for about 5 hours


----------



## Aleu (Sep 10, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> So I've developed a time travel theory today. Hear me out on this one.
> 
> The earth spins at around 700-900mph at the lattitude of the USA
> So if I build an aircraft that can achieve such speeds, which is entirely possible
> ...


 This sounds familiar...oh yeah
the retarded theory from Superman IV that if Superman flew around the world opposite that it was spinning, he'd go back in time.


----------



## Fraxture (Sep 10, 2010)

It has been proven that vicinity to a large object slows down time for those near it. 

What you describe is time dilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The experiment in 1971 proved that gavitational forces have an effect on time..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

But true, matter cannot reach the speed of light. But we can get near it. And when we do, those on board the vessel will have time slow down for them. So if they were to travel to the nearest planet that we think is inhabitable...it would take them 88 years of their lives. And it woudl be 1000 years later here on earth.

They have proven that 'theroy' with the Hadron Collider..

Oh yeah, time can never be reveresed or stopped.

Man what the hell?!?! I need a beer...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 10, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> Yeah well. It's still fun telling online friends from the west that I'm from the future.


 
I can do that any time I want when talking to practically anyone outside of NZ, as we're two hours ahead of Australia, twelve hours ahead of Europe, and eighteen hours + ahead of the US.

And I don't even need to get out of my chair to do it 

(Now, where's my sonic screwdriver...)


----------



## anotherbloodywolf (Sep 10, 2010)

an even simpler example the effects of gravity on time is that if we didnt use the lorentz transformations to adjust the signals from gps satelites, then they would be up to 7 miles off! (i think its 7, thats what i remember and im not working it out to double check)


----------



## Tycho (Sep 10, 2010)

OP cannot be serious.  This has to be a joke thread.

Let's say you have a train.  An extremely fast train.  A train that went around and around the Earth, and did not have to worry about friction.  You could push that train all the way up to a speed just BARELY below the speed of light.  The train and its passengers, while moving at this extreme speed, would be moving rapidly forward through time, and a minute for them would be like a millennium for anyone not on that train.  That train could never attain or exceed the speed of light though.


----------



## Zrcalo (Sep 10, 2010)

I know a great way of time travelling. 
just walk backwards.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 10, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> I know a great way of time travelling.
> just walk backwards.


 
I know a better one.  Just go to a Tea Party demonstration.  You'll be able to FEEL time going in reverse as the hands on the clock of human societal progress spin backwards.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 10, 2010)

well, if you travel fast enough you could actually "travel" to the future^^ this is called time dilation. time moves on slower for object A if object B is slower in comparision to object A's speed. GPS satelites have to account for that for example! time runs slower for them and there is always an error of about 7.2 microseconds per day.
even if you drive a car and your friend stays behind at home for example time moves on faster for him^^ in this case you just cant really see or feel it because the speed is too low


----------



## Zrcalo (Sep 10, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I know a better one.  Just go to a Tea Party demonstration.  You'll be able to FEEL time going in reverse as the hands on the clock of human societal progress spin backwards.


 

haha!
oh hell yes. 
tea party demonstration or tea bag demonstration?

both include faggots.


----------



## Zrcalo (Sep 10, 2010)

CaptainCool said:


> well, if you travel fast enough you could actually "travel" to the future^^ this is called time dilation. time moves on slower for object A if object B is slower in comparision to object A's speed. GPS satelites have to account for that for example! time runs faster for them and there is always an error of about 7.2 microseconds per day.
> even if you drive a car and your friend stays behind at home for example time moves on faster for him^^ in this case you just cant really see or feel it because the speed is too low


FALSE
clock time =/= actual time.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 10, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I know a better one.  Just go to a Tea Party demonstration.  You'll be able to FEEL time going in reverse as the hands on the clock of human societal progress spin backwards.


 
"Welcome to X - please put your watches back thirty years..."


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 10, 2010)

Zrcalo said:


> FALSE
> clock time =/= actual time.


 
instead of just screaming "FALSE"... how about telling me whats supposed to be false about my post?


----------



## Zrcalo (Sep 10, 2010)

Mayfurr said:


> "Welcome to X - please put your watches back thirty years..."


 
we need to return to the old america!
enslave the blacks! women shouldnt work! make more babies! atheists will be burned!


----------



## Commiecomrade (Sep 10, 2010)

In fact, truly you'd be going FORWARD in time because mass at velocity travels through time slower; you're traveling faster than all of us, and therefore going forward in time.

So your plan would work in the figurative sense, but backfire in the literal.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 11, 2010)

Xenke said:


> No.
> 
> I forget how, but one theory I heard for time travel involved light, and one could only travel back to when the machine was first made.
> 
> Most other theories I've heard though are retarded though.


This is why you can only time travel to the point when the time machine was first made: time travel requires the ability to move faster than light between two frames of reference moving away from each other at near light speed with respect to each other.  From each frame of reference, the other frame of reference paradoxically appears to be moving slower than your own.  So someone in a spaceship moving away from Earth at 99.9% of the speed of light would appear to move and age very slowly.  But the standpoint of the people on the ship, the Earth appears to be moving & aging very slowly.  

The paradox is resolved when information is passed between the two frames of reference, assuming that information is via something like radio waves or something else limited to light speed.  The transmission would take longer than the time stretching effect, so there is no way for the information to arrive before it appears to have been sent.  But that's not the case when you have the ability to send information or people faster than light!  If the ship had some sort of quantum communicator that was near-instantaneous, a transmission from the ship to Earth would arrive before the ship appears to have sent it!  If someone from Earth replies using the same system, the reply will therefore appear before the original transmission was sent.  In essence, the transmission (and its reply) have traveled back in time.

_*BUT*_ this only works with two frames of reference moving at relativistic speeds with respect to each other.  If there's an FTL communication system between the Earth and Mars that allows for lagless communication between Mission Control & robots on the surface, the time distortions of the transmissions would be so small as to be barely measurable.  Likewise, if someone was using an FTL teleporter to bounce back & forth between a fast moving spacecraft and the Earth, they could only go back in time to the moment the spacecraft was launched.  Before then, bouncing between the spacecraft on the launch pad and some point on Earth via an FTL teleporter is just a cool way to grab a quick lunch in Tokyo moments before the launch in Florida.

So the "time machine" we're talking about is really HUGE, likely many light-years in width, because it requires 4 components: 2 frames of reference moving nearly the speed of light away from each other, and an FTL system to bounce signals or objects between the two.  To go back in time 20 years, the "machine" needs to be roughly 20 light years wide!


----------



## yiffytimesnews (Sep 12, 2010)

Great idea but even the experts can't agree how we can actually time travel


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 12, 2010)

Hey guys is it possible to have a negative speed?  I'm not talking vector-side, like velocity which is speed and direction, I'm talking scalar, as in just speed.

Because there's your answer to this "hurr durr go back in time by going really fast BACKWARDS" chat.


----------



## ScruffStuff (Sep 12, 2010)

Wow, I didn't know everyone here were physicists. Cool stuff though, all these theories.


----------



## insan3guy (Sep 12, 2010)

me and a friend i know think almost exactly the same. like he knows exactly what im thinking and HOW i think, and vice-versa. its so much easier to talk about complex stuff like this when you practically share the same mind. anyway, this one dude came over and started talking. he had no idea whatsoever what he was talking about, and we totally shot him down....good times.

_anyway_, the whole traveling east to west thing is NOT traveling back in time. the time zones are just different because they're in different places on earth in relation to the SUN. they aren't actually in different times, we just perceive them to be. if the sun were to disappear(dont lecture about how the earth would freeze, go flying off into space, etc. cuz thats not my point) then we would all basically be in the same time zone.
the only way to travel through time is to travel near the speed of light or go slower than what we're moving right now. that's my understanding of it, anyway.
(my physics teacher used the whole time zone thing as a question on my final exam for that class)

time travel is a BITCH to even contemplate.....


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

Apparently the laws of physics may vary throughout the universe.

http://gizmodo.com/5635559/zany-scientists-claim-the-laws-of-physics-change-throughout-the-universe


(I know there are other FA users that read gizmodo, so don't kill me if i'm not the only person who posted this link...)


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> Wow, I didn't know everyone here were physicists.


 
Nope, just marginally-educated guessers at best and Discovery Channel junkies at worst :V


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I know a better one.  Just go to a Tea Party demonstration.  You'll be able to FEEL time going in reverse as the hands on the clock of human societal progress spin backwards.


 
Translation: Tycho has never actually attended a Tea Party event, and believes everything Keith Olbermann says about them.


Big government is such a new, progressive idea.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

cmrnmrphy said:


> LIES
> 
> That just makes you an old man when you look in a mirror, and then you trip on a couch for about 5 hours


 
It only works if you're listening to Thinking is the Best Way to Travel by the Moody Blues on vinyl in stereo through headphones.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> Translation: Tycho has never actually attended a Tea Party event, and believes everything Keith Olbermann says about them.
> 
> 
> Big government is such a new, progressive idea.


 
I don't care what Keith Olbermann says about them.  I let them speak for themselves, and they do.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I don't care what Keith Olbermann says about them.  I let them speak for themselves, and they do.


 
So what is it that they've said that's so backwards?


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> So what is it that they've said that's so backwards?


 
THEY are backwards.  They are selfish ignorant bigots.  And the Constitution, as important as it is, is NOT a sacred document.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 12, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> So what is it that they've said that's so backwards?


 
yes it's not like there's loads of photos and videos of speeches and people expressing exactly what they feel


----------



## Sauvignon (Sep 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> THEY are backwards.  They are selfish ignorant bigots.  And the Constitution, as important as it is, is NOT a sacred document.


 
Go back to Canada


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 12, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> yes it's not like there's loads of photos and videos of speeches and people expressing exactly what they feel


 LIBERAL PROPAGANDA PUT THERE BY BIG GOVERNMENT


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Go back to Canada


 
Hell no.  I hear they just elected a male version of Sarah Palin as prime minister there.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Nope, just marginally-educated guessers at best and Discovery Channel junkies at worst :V


Uh, some of us have actually attended college physics courses dealing with relativity.  The consequences of FTL travel and how it relates to time travel is not exactly a minor topic in such a class.

No, I'm not a physicist.  I chose computer programming as an occupation instead.  "Publish or perish" didn't sounds like a very good career path to me!  But that doesn't make what I know about FTL travel any less true.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Uh, some of us have actually attended college physics courses dealing with relativity.  The consequences of FTL travel and how it relates to time travel is not exactly a minor topic in such a class.
> 
> No, I'm not a physicist.  I chose computer programming as an occupation instead.  "Publish or perish" didn't sounds like a very good career path to me!  But that doesn't make what I know about FTL travel any less true.


 
OK, you actually know what you're talking about because you took college courses.  That's one.  You got me, my statement is grossly inaccurate.  Great.  Any other highly-educated folks here want to shoot holes in my half-assed quip? Anyone at all?


----------



## Wreth (Sep 12, 2010)

Let's say you build a time machine and go a day into the future.

Oops! The earth isn't there anymore, it moves.


----------



## Sauvignon (Sep 12, 2010)

Wreth said:


> Let's say you build a time machine and go a day into the future.
> 
> Oops! The earth isn't there anymore, it moves.


 

Does it? Does the earth really move through space, or does space move around the the earth?


----------



## Wreth (Sep 12, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Does it? Does the earth really move through space, or does space move around the the earth?


 
Our galaxy, like all galaxies is rushing away from the centre of the universe.

Everything in the universe is zooming away from one central point.

Earth is no exception.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 12, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> Does it? Does the earth really move through space, or does space move around the the earth?


 
are you fucking kidding


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> THEY are backwards.  They are selfish ignorant bigots.  And the Constitution, as important as it is, is NOT a sacred document.


 
Again, what is it that makes you think so?  What have they done or said that makes you think you're so superior to them?


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> are you fucking kidding


 
Bobskunk has never taken a physics class.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 12, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> Bobskunk has never taken a physics class.


 
he's positing (whether or not he's seriously arguing it) that the Earth is a static universal reference point and the universe moves /around/ us

that's fucking retarded, origin point would be at the center of the universe, not us


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> he's positing (whether or not he's seriously arguing it) that the Earth is a static universal reference point and the universe moves /around/ us
> 
> that's fucking retarded, origin point would be at the center of the universe, not us


 
Again, I say...

Bobskunk has never taken a physics lesson.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> Again, what is it that makes you think so?  What have they done or said that makes you think you're so superior to them?


 
They drop the socialism-bomb way too readily.  They drop it the split-fucking-second the subject of universal health care comes up, as a matter of fact.  "GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT, THEY'LL TAKE AWAY ALL OUR RIGHTS AND OUR MONEY AND OUR GUNS" is getting really fucking tiresome.  You people are stupid, you are rats led by Pied Pipers, you are bigots and fools.


----------



## Sauvignon (Sep 12, 2010)

Wreth said:


> Our galaxy, like all galaxies is rushing away from the centre of the universe.
> 
> Everything in the universe is zooming away from one central point.
> 
> Earth is no exception.



That is one theory, and it only applies to the space contained within the universe. Now what space to you suppose applies to time?


----------



## Sauvignon (Sep 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> They drop the socialism-bomb way too readily.  They drop it the split-fucking-second the subject of universal health care comes up, as a matter of fact.  "GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT, THEY'LL TAKE AWAY ALL OUR RIGHTS AND OUR MONEY AND OUR GUNS" is getting really fucking tiresome.  You people are stupid, you are rats led by Pied Pipers, you are bigots and fools.


 
They do take our guns and money. They need the money to enforce the gun bans.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 12, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> Again, I say...
> 
> Bobskunk has never taken a physics lesson.


 
Ok fine I get it, relativity accounts for coordinates in things like that and what I said was wrong.
Sorry for assuming you're both incorrect because you're conservatives, this is pretty much the first time this assumption has lead me in the wrong direction.

Also I'm kinda pissed about the sig size limit otherwise this would be my new one:


> .17 Remington, .17 HMR Airgun and BB gun .177 caliber .204 Ruger .22 Long Rifle, .223
> 
> Remington (5.56mm NATO), 5.7 x 28 mm, .22-250 Remington .228 Ackley Magnum .243
> 
> ...


----------



## Tycho (Sep 12, 2010)

It's just a bunch of bullets.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> They drop the socialism-bomb way too readily.  They drop it the split-fucking-second the subject of universal health care comes up, as a matter of fact.  "GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT, THEY'LL TAKE AWAY ALL OUR RIGHTS AND OUR MONEY AND OUR GUNS" is getting really fucking tiresome.  You people are stupid, you are rats led by Pied Pipers, you are bigots and fools.


 
So here's what I can gather about you...

You don't mind that we have the highest cancer survival rate in the world, because the free market hasn't created a fountain of youth yet.
You don't care that we would have the highest life expectancy in the world were it not for car accidents and homicide, because facts are just a distraction.
You don't care that government programs tend to be incredibly inefficient, because you want to impose your altruist dogma on the country while simultaneously screaming "separation of church and state" at people who want to end abortion.
You don't care that murders are most likely to be committed with guns in countries that ban guns, because guns scare the living shit out of you.
You don't care that the rich are the source of employment for the poor, because being rich automatically makes people evil and taking money from them makes you feel like fucking robin hood.

And i'm the bigot?  I'm the fool?  Shut the fuck up.  You don't know the first thing about economics, and rather than debating facts you feel like stereotyping your opposition.  
Take a fucking economics class.  Learn something.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Ok fine I get it, relativity accounts for coordinates in things like that and what I said was wrong.
> Sorry for assuming you're both incorrect because you're conservatives, this is pretty much the first time this assumption has lead me in the wrong direction.


 
Hey, no hard feelings.  Just keep an open mind.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 12, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> Take a fucking economics class.  Learn something.


 Like about social costs and how a government is required to make sure that prices are at a social equilibrium and it's not just businesses fucking everyone over.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 12, 2010)

Tycho said:


> It's just a bunch of bullets.


 
Yes that's kind of a theme with certain types



Fenrir Lupus said:


> You don't mind that we have the highest cancer survival rate in the world, because the free market hasn't created a fountain of youth yet.



The problem isn't the care itself, it's paying for the care.  The current private insurance model is crap, while our private healthcare system is good.  So yes, our cancer survival rate as an outcome of treatment is great, but what about people without coverage because they either can't afford it or were previously dropped once they got _really_ sick, even after years of paying increasing premiums?  Also keep in mind people do go bankrupt over medical bills because bad things can happen to everybody.



> You don't care that we would have the highest life expectancy in the world were it not for car accidents and homicide, because facts are just a distraction.



oh hey nice assertion
let me just take care of that for you
look for "United States," and, without having to look too far, find "United Kingdom"
that's just an instant hole in your assertion, so you might as well look up Japan, or Australia, or Canada.
EDIT: OH WAIT I FORGOT YOUR CAVEAT
so then what's our rate for car accidents- let's see how that compares to the rest of the world.  I mean, clearly our homicide rate is high among the industrialized world, but cars are harder to determine based on different criteria.



> You don't care that government programs tend to be incredibly inefficient, because you want to impose your altruist dogma on the country while simultaneously screaming "separation of church and state" at people who want to end abortion.



How are these two things related
And if we're talking about health insurance/care, Medicare doesn't seem to have the kind of administrative overhead and, more importantly, incentive to deny coverage simply to retain profit margins
Also the benefit of a large scale government healthcare system like single payer is to have a massive risk pool and a guarantee of payment so private hospitals don't have to deal with the headache and mess that exists because HMOs and other organizations are the dominant method of paying for healthcare- an inelastic commodity where you can't just say "well jeez i'd pay $100,000 to save my life, but I wouldn't pay a $250,000, that's too much"
also isn't it ironic that the people complaining about government interference in their lives both want to prevent gay marriage and abortion by force of government/legislation?



> You don't care that murders are most likely to be committed with guns in countries that ban guns, because guns scare the living shit out of you.



Again, Canada: it's viewed by certain types as some gun-grabbing hippy liberal dystopia, right?  So then it follows that murders will be more likely to be committed in a country with such stringent gun-control, compared to the United States of Second Amendment circlejerking.  Then why are U.S. murders committed with guns in ~70% of cases and ~30% in Canadia?  That's silly.

Also it's less an issue with the guns themselves than it is the people that fetishize them and fill out their profiles with random gun info.  See: InsaneKangaroo's FA profile, or his behavior regarding Anthrocon and open carry, and generally being an unstable gun-crazy puss.



> You don't care that the rich are the source of employment for the poor, because being rich automatically makes people evil and taking money from them makes you feel like fucking robin hood.



You forget that the current economy has been stripped of everything but the 1% of owners, since under free trade agreements it's much more profitable .  In a consumer-based economy like we have, if there's no middle class to buy the goods because they're not earning enough (not to mention the continuing rise in healthcare costs), then more jobs get moved overseas.  Sure, they provide jobs, they provide the jobs to third world countries where they don't legally have to pay a sustainable wage or contend with safety regulations.  That leaves a lot of retail jobs over here selling to less people, since there's no more factories to work in to buy your own products.

If they keep sucking the life out of the middle class by cutting all possible expenses and awarding themselves bonuses for doing such a great job by closing down United States operations because they saved loads of money by having 7 year olds in Indonesia do it (and again, not pass the savings to anybody but the owners of the company), then what happens?  People get desperate because they can't earn what they used to in the face of rising costs of living, while the rich benefit the most from a stable society: it's how they're able to conduct business and not, say, find themselves executed by an angry mob of factory workers left homeless because the guy had the great idea to make himself more money at the expense of their own domestic economy.  Unemployment checks keep people from resorting to drastic measures to survive, and yet wealthy people and corporations manage to finagle their way out of paying as much taxes as they can while everyone else gets stuck with the bill.  Even Adam Smith was for a progressive taxation system for exactly this reason, taxes are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and they're even lower with the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the highest income bracket than they were even under fucking Reagan.

This country's previous stability is what allowed them to get so wealthy and instead they're pillaging what they can and saying "fuck you got mine."



> And i'm the bigot?  I'm the fool?  Shut the fuck up.  You don't know the first thing about economics, and rather than debating facts you feel like stereotyping your opposition.
> Take a fucking economics class.  Learn something.


 
I'm surprised you didn't say ECON 101 in specific.  Half you guys who say that take micro and leave it at that, not to mention interpret the Laffer curve in a fucked-up way that would theoretically yield infinite income with absolutely zero taxes. :V

sorry about your defense of the tea party, you totally got used


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 12, 2010)

Jashwa said:


> Like about social costs and how a government is required to make sure that prices are at a social equilibrium and it's not just businesses fucking everyone over.


 *sigh*

If the prices are too high, PEOPLE DON'T BUY SHIT.  Besides, since when do you have a right to be able to afford anything you fucking want?


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 12, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> *sigh*
> 
> If the prices are too high, PEOPLE DON'T BUY SHIT.  Besides, since when do you have a right to be able to afford anything you fucking want?


 Take an economics class and learn what social costs and a social equilibrium is. It might be a nice thing to do before telling other people to take one.


----------



## Sauvignon (Sep 13, 2010)

And that's when I came up with the idea for the flux capacitor, basically a shoebox full of rope lights, which is what makes time travel possible.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 13, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> So here's what I can gather about you...
> 
> You don't mind that we have the highest cancer survival rate in the world, because the free market hasn't created a fountain of youth yet.



What? Are you trying to say "you don't CARE that"? Because otherwise this makes no fucking sense.



Fenrir Lupus said:


> You don't care that we would have the highest life expectancy in the world were it not for car accidents and homicide, because facts are just a distraction.



Link to your source for this or get the fuck out.  I smell bullshit.



Fenrir Lupus said:


> You don't care that government programs tend to be incredibly inefficient, because you want to impose your altruist dogma on the country while simultaneously screaming "separation of church and state" at people who want to end abortion.



"Altruist dogma"? I care about inefficiency, I care more that there are programs in place where needed, when needed, and I don't like the "priority list" some of you folks have for "programs to be cut".  Separation of church and state goes beyond abortion, it is both a matter of human rights and a matter of sound government in a country of free people who wish to worship as they see fit if at all, and not be compelled to follow a religion of the state.



Fenrir Lupus said:


> You don't care that murders are most likely to be committed with guns in countries that ban guns, because guns scare the living shit out of you.



You really don't know me, do you? I'm not for banning guns.  I'd rather see gun safety courses become more common and I'd rather see people quit bitching about the waiting periods and background checks.  Also, source for your info here? It smells like bullshit.



Fenrir Lupus said:


> You don't care that the rich are the source of employment for the poor, because being rich automatically makes people evil and taking money from them makes you feel like fucking robin hood.



The poor are the source of labor and financial gain for the rich.  Upon their backs are the rich peoples' manses built.  You neglect your foundation and you will lose the whole house.  Supply side economics is a farce and in a world of imperfect people who are prone to greed and avarice it is pure poison for an economy.



Fenrir Lupus said:


> And i'm the bigot?  I'm the fool?  Shut the fuck up.  You don't know the first thing about economics, and rather than debating facts *you feel like stereotyping your opposition*.
> Take a fucking economics class.  Learn something.


 
Glass houses.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 13, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> Yes that's kind of a theme with certain types
> 
> 
> 
> The problem isn't the care itself, it's paying for the care.  The current private insurance model is crap, while our private healthcare system is good.  So yes, our cancer survival rate as an outcome of treatment is great, but what about people without coverage because they either can't afford it or were previously dropped once they got _really_ sick, even after years of paying increasing premiums?  Also keep in mind people do go bankrupt over medical bills because bad things can happen to everybody.



So you suddenly have the right to receive a doctor's services at no cost?  How magical.



> oh hey nice assertion
> let me just take care of that for you
> look for "United States," and, without having to look too far, find "United Kingdom"
> that's just an instant hole in your assertion, so you might as well look up Japan, or Australia, or Canada.


I did mention car accidents and homicide, didn't I?
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html
Try to pay attention to ALL of my words, they tend to mean something.



> How are these two things related
> And if we're talking about health insurance/care, Medicare doesn't seem to have the kind of administrative overhead and, more importantly, incentive to deny coverage simply to retain profit margins


Rather, it has the incentive to deny coverage to avoid going into debt.  Oh wait, what was that?  Debt?  oh yeah...  we have it.  100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.  You want to add to that?


> Also the benefit of a large scale government healthcare system like single payer is to have a massive risk pool and a guarantee of payment so private hospitals don't have to deal with the headache and mess that exists because HMOs and other organizations are the dominant method of paying for healthcare- an inelastic commodity where you can't just say "well jeez i'd pay $100,000 to save my life, but I wouldn't pay a $250,000, that's too much"


I'd rather have that option, as it's not available in some other parts of the world.  Also, lives that are going to end relatively soon anyway are sometimes considered not valuable enough to be saved by socialized health programs.  This is where the term "death panel" comes from-- other people get to decide if it's worth the government's money to save your life.


> also isn't it ironic that the people complaining about government interference in their lives both want to prevent gay marriage and abortion by force of government/legislation?


Abortion isn't arguable because those in opposition to abortion consider it to be murder.
As for gay marriage...  remember, this is the tea party movement we're talking about here.  As far as "conservative" movements go, it leans pretty far toward libertarianism.  That's beside the point anyway, as gay marriage and abortion are both social issues, and the tea party movement focuses on economic issues.



> Again, Canada: it's viewed by certain types as some gun-grabbing hippy liberal dystopia, right?  So then it follows that murders will be more likely to be committed in a country with such stringent gun-control, compared to the United States of Second Amendment circlejerking.  Then why are U.S. murders committed with guns in ~70% of cases and ~30% in Canadia?  That's silly.


England.

Also, the majority of weapons used in those murders are obtained illegally, so your argument is moot.  Gangsters have no use for weapons that can be obtained legally.


> Also it's less an issue with the guns themselves than it is the people that fetishize them and fill out their profiles with random gun info.  See: InsaneKangaroo's FA profile, or his behavior regarding Anthrocon and open carry, and generally being an unstable gun-crazy puss.


So what?  He can like guns, you can like creepy clown pictures.



> You forget that the current economy has been stripped of everything but the 1% of owners, since under free trade agreements it's much more profitable .  In a consumer-based economy like we have, if there's no middle class to buy the goods because they're not earning enough (not to mention the continuing rise in healthcare costs), then more jobs get moved overseas.  Sure, they provide jobs, they provide the jobs to third world countries where they don't legally have to pay a sustainable wage or contend with safety regulations.  That leaves a lot of retail jobs over here selling to less people, since there's no more factories to work in to buy your own products.


You know, i'd love to argue about outsourcing here, but economists tend to do a much better job of that.  Just read this.
http://mises.org/daily/1488

Anyway...  You seem more concerned about the "wealth gap" that inevitably comes up in normative economics discussions with progressives than the relatively low poverty here compared to everywhere else in the world.  Our "poor" people would doubtless be considered incredibly rich in Burkina Faso.

And by the way...  my other argument still stands.  The rich people in this country or abroad are a source of employment.  To tax them is to harm their ability to employ others, and thus, destroy their capacity to produce.  Sure, you may redistribute what they've already produced, but keep in mind, there's less of it to redistribute.



> If they keep sucking the life out of the middle class by cutting all possible expenses and awarding themselves bonuses for doing such a great job by closing down United States operations because they saved loads of money by having 7 year olds in Indonesia do it (and again, not pass the savings to anybody but the owners of the company), then what happens?


 Perhaps they wouldn't close down United States operations if they could produce something here that people could afford and pay their workers enough to prevent a strike?  (not to mention the taxes)


> People get desperate because they can't earn what they used to in the face of rising costs of living, while the rich benefit the most from a stable society: it's how they're able to conduct business and not, say, find themselves executed by an angry mob of factory workers left homeless because the guy had the great idea to make himself more money at the expense of their own domestic economy.


So now people have a right to be employed by someone and to be paid more than that person is willing?  Why the fuck would anyone bother running a business if they can't make it profitable?
Oh and I love your characterization of the events, sounds really dismal.  You should consider writing novels for a living.


> Unemployment checks


paid for by people who would be employing if the government got their noses out of other people's business


> keep people from resorting to drastic measures to survive,


as if theft isn't a drastic measure


> and yet wealthy people and corporations manage to finagle their way out of paying as much taxes as they can while everyone else gets stuck with the bill.


Nobody should have to pay over half of what they make in taxes, and once the dreaded "Bush tax cuts" expire, they will be if you add together state, local, and federal.


> Even Adam Smith was for a progressive taxation system for exactly this reason, taxes are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and they're even lower with the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the highest income bracket than they were even under fucking Reagan.


 Reagan wasn't superman.  His predecessor was a nightmare.


> This country's previous stability is what allowed them to get so wealthy and instead they're pillaging what they can and saying "fuck you got mine."


Yeah, because people HAVE to buy products from these EVIL rich fat cats who are RAPING everyone.  
Where do you get this information, the back of a cereal box?



> I'm surprised you didn't say ECON 101 in specific.  Half you guys who say that take micro and leave it at that, not to mention interpret the Laffer curve in a fucked-up way that would theoretically yield infinite income with absolutely zero taxes. :V


 I mean any economics class, and talk to the fucking professor after class.

You've made that quip about the Laffer curve before, and you know that you're bullshitting.  We just want something more like the Coolidge administration, is that too hard to ask?


> sorry about your defense of the tea party, you totally got used


 Sorry about your attack, you totally got owned.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 13, 2010)

Fuck yeah, I gotta end all my posts with "you got owned." I forgot how hardcore and awesome it makes you look. 

You got owned.


----------



## Azure (Sep 13, 2010)

Hey guess what Time Travel will never ever happen in your lifetime so maybe do something interesting like masturbate instead of argue about arbitrary physics?


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Sep 13, 2010)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Hey guess what Time Travel will never ever happen in your lifetime so maybe do something interesting like masturbate instead of argue about arbitrary physics?


 
ALREADY ON IT CHIEF


----------



## Kreevox (Sep 13, 2010)

Tycho said:


> OP cannot be serious.  This has to be a joke thread.
> 
> Let's say you have a train.  An extremely fast train.  A train that went around and around the Earth, and did not have to worry about friction.  You could push that train all the way up to a speed just BARELY below the speed of light.  The train and its passengers, while moving at this extreme speed, would be moving rapidly forward through time, and a minute for them would be like a millennium for anyone not on that train.  That train could never attain or exceed the speed of light though.



I heard Stephen Hawking mention this on Discovery Channel, he said the reason they would move forward through time is physics as we know it has a fail-safe:  because the passengers are moving at just under the speed of light, any movement by the passengers should in theory exceed the speed of light, right?  Wrong, the fail-safe is that time inside the train will slow down to keep anything inside the train moving just under the speed of light.

To that end, your prediction for on how far in time they will travel is way off, according to Hawking's calculations, it's about 10 years outside to 1 year inside the train, e.g. if the train went on for 100 years in the real world, the passengers will have only lived and aged 10 years.

For me that would be insane, i.e. if I were to bored that train, I would be 29 in the year 2110, or in world time I'd be 119 years old, if I was the only passenger, and if the record still hasn't been broken I could technically be the oldest living man, and still have many more years to go


----------



## Rossyfox (Sep 13, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> As for gay marriage...  remember, this is the tea party movement we're talking about here.  As far as "conservative" movements go, it leans pretty far toward libertarianism.  That's beside the point anyway, as gay marriage and abortion are both social issues, and the tea party movement focuses on economic issues.


 
Sorry to burst your bubble, buddy, but now that the Tea Party has actual candidates, who have been funnelled actual money from Tea Party supporters, this can now be shown to be factually incorrect. Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell... these people are all social conservatives; and don't forget Michele Bachmann, founder of the Tea Party Caucus, heavily embraced by the Tea Party.

Libertarians got left out in the cold. The Tea Party is a populist rabble and that always results in extremists rising to the top (not that libertarians aren't extremists in their own way). The Tea Party is not your movement.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 13, 2010)

Tycho said:


> Link to your source for this or get the fuck out.  I smell bullshit.


http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html


> "Altruist dogma"? I care about inefficiency, I care more that there are programs in place where needed, when needed, and I don't like the "priority list" some of you folks have for "programs to be cut".


With 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, yeah, we need to make cuts.  Deal with it.


> Separation of church and state goes beyond abortion, it is both a matter of human rights and a matter of sound government in a country of free people who wish to worship as they see fit if at all, and not be compelled to follow a religion of the state.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
I don't see where in there it says "religion may play role in government."  Yes, there's freedom to choose and practice your own religion, but that doesn't mean that congress cannot pass laws that have a religious basis.



> You really don't know me, do you?


I'll admit it, I don't.  I just figured since you can stereotype, I can do the same thing back at you.


> I'm not for banning guns.  I'd rather see gun safety courses become more common and I'd rather see people quit bitching about the waiting periods and background checks.  Also, source for your info here? It smells like bullshit.


You smell like bullshit and I don't ask you to cite a source for your existence.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/22/63817.shtml

Had better sources, but these work just fine.



> The poor are the source of labor and financial gain for the rich.  Upon their backs are the rich peoples' manses built.  You neglect your foundation and you will lose the whole house.  Supply side economics is a farce and in a world of imperfect people who are prone to greed and avarice it is pure poison for an economy.


Do you realize how idiotic you sound?  Unskilled labor isn't the source of wealth, it's what they make under the direction of those who know what to make.  If it weren't for the rich, what the fuck would they do for a living?




> Glass houses.


You're in one, i'm afraid.


----------



## insan3guy (Sep 13, 2010)

i love how this whole time travel thread totally turned into a fucking politics talk.  gawd people....


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 13, 2010)

Rossyfox said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, buddy, but now that the Tea Party has actual candidates,


They have since the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district



> who have been funnelled actual money from Tea Party supporters,


I didn't say libertarians were the only tea party supporters


> this can now be shown to be factually incorrect. Sharron Angle, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell... these people are all social conservatives; and don't forget Michele Bachmann, founder of the Tea Party Caucus, heavily embraced by the Tea Party.


May I repeat that the tea party focuses on economic issues?  I did say "As far as 'conservative' movements go" and though you may find actual conservatives within the tea party, you'll also find plenty of support for libertarians.  Had those candidates been libertarian, they would have also been "heavily embraced" by the Tea Party.


> Libertarians got left out in the cold. The Tea Party is a populist rabble and that always results in extremists rising to the top (not that libertarians aren't extremists in their own way). The Tea Party is not your movement.


I'm torn between laughing at this and crying for you.


----------



## Rossyfox (Sep 13, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> May I repeat that the tea party focuses on economic issues?  I did say "As far as 'conservative' movements go" and though you may find actual conservatives within the tea party, you'll also find plenty of support for libertarians.  Had those candidates been libertarian, they would have also been "heavily embraced" by the Tea Party.


 
These are the Tea Party's most high profile, and so far most successful candidates. If anyone puts money into the Tea Party the net effect is that they will help social conservatives, so don't feed me this bullshit line about it being a libertarian uprising ready to take the country back.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 13, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> *You smell like bullshit* and I don't ask you to cite a source for your existence.



:V



Fenrir Lupus said:


> Do you realize how idiotic you sound?  Unskilled labor isn't the source of wealth, it's what they make under the direction of those who know what to make.  *If it weren't for the rich, what the fuck would they do for a living?*


 
Gee, I dunno, not like there aren't ways to make a living without getting it spooned into a bowl for you by a rich employer.  Basic living, maybe, but the rich folks aren't indispensable really - all there needs to be is someone who needs a job done and someone who will do it for money/food/whatever.  Those little gears in the great machine of industry, the workers - without them the machine founders.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 13, 2010)

Tycho said:


> :V
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, I dunno, not like there aren't ways to make a living without getting it spooned into a bowl for you by a rich employer.  Basic living, maybe, but the rich folks aren't indispensable really - all there needs to be is someone who needs a job done and someone who will do it for money/food/whatever.  Those little gears in the great machine of industry, the workers - without them the machine founders.


 
I guess I'll have to close by saying "Just shut up about politics until you've taken an economics class or two."  I don't give a crap if it's Keynesian, because even Keynes had his head screwed on a bit straighter than yours.


----------



## Rossyfox (Sep 13, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> I guess I'll have to close by saying "Just shut up about politics until you've taken an economics class or two."  I don't give a crap if it's Keynesian, because even Keynes had his head screwed on a bit straighter than yours.


 
Right wing wolves are always this way. Sigh :3


----------



## Tycho (Sep 13, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> I guess I'll have to close by saying "Just shut up about politics until you've taken an economics class or two."  I don't give a crap if it's Keynesian, because even Keynes had his head screwed on a bit straighter than yours.


 
:3c

I'm not even the one who really shot you down and I still feel pretty smug.


----------



## Fenrir Lupus (Sep 13, 2010)

Tycho said:


> :3c
> 
> I'm not even the one who really shot you down and I still feel pretty smug.


I guess you really do believe that ignorance is strength.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 13, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> I guess you really do believe that ignorance is strength.


 
Nice, obligatory 1984-referencing parting pot-shot.  Five stars, dude.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 13, 2010)

Best form of Time travel, pass the International dateline

/thread


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

Fenrir Lupus said:


> So you suddenly have the right to receive a doctor's services at no cost?  How magical.



My first reaction was stoppedreadingthere.jpg but I guess I'll continue anyway.  Nice strawman, cocksucker.  A basic standard of available care with supplemental insurance would go a long way in making this country healthier and combating costs because then we don't have drains on emergency rooms because without insurance that's the only way some people can get treatment and end up skipping on the bill of some of the most important care possible just because they are unable to see a GP due to lack of insurance.

A taxpayer funded pool like social security, or more to the point, MEDICARE FOR EVERYBODY, that guarantees a sudden onset of cancer won't bankrupt you and your family would be a fantastic thing.  Not only is healthcare insecurity one of the things that keeps people from changing careers, but it also harms consumer spending.  A basic guarantee of healthcare coverage would do wonders for that, as well as lessening burden of private employers who are either SPENDING MONEY ON EXPENSIVE PRIVATE EMPLOYER PLANS INSTEAD OF WAGES or leaving employees to fend for themselves for health insurance based on those same rising rates, when as individuals they have far less power to negotiate rates and packages.



> I did mention car accidents and homicide, didn't I?
> http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html
> Try to pay attention to ALL of my words, they tend to mean something.



Yes I caught that and edited in a note because I misread you the first time.  Go back and read my edit because 



> Rather, it has the incentive to deny coverage to avoid going into debt.  Oh wait, what was that?  Debt?  oh yeah...  we have it.  100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.  You want to add to that?



How about actually funding it?  Just like a load of other things we desperately need money for but are unable/unwilling to raise revenue for, like our roads and other infrastructure.  I mean, you're arguing that Medicare has problems providing coverage because it doesn't have enough money, right?  I mean, aside from stuff like Medicare Part D's blocking of drug price negotiations necessarily driving up costs for the program.  Maybe we need to cut spending in areas like our overgrown military and all its escapades in the middle east or incestual contractors providing redundant services for large contracts.  Maybe we need to take a look at the tax code in a way that goes beyond "lower taxes for the wealthy so maybe they'll provide more jobs."



> I'd rather have that option, as it's not available in some other parts of the world.  Also, lives that are going to end relatively soon anyway are sometimes considered not valuable enough to be saved by socialized health programs.  This is where the term "death panel" comes from-- other people get to decide if it's worth the government's money to save your life.



You're acting like they're mutually exclusive when they're not.  Nothing stops someone from England from flying over here and paying out of pocket coverage for THE BEST HEALTHCARE IN THE WORLD _if they can afford it_, which is something that many people here cannot do.  So what good is THE BEST HEALTHCARE IN THE WORLD when there is no reasonable access?

the "death panel" term is bullshit and you know it, but I can see why you don't want to consider actuaries as death panels, even though they do the same fucking thing (healthcare is not an unlimited quantity, everybody needs healthcare at some point in their lives, therefore healthcare has to be rationed) except their interest lies in denying as many cases as possible since people invest in those companies to get returns, and actually paying for customers who get sick cuts into that margin.

Even moreso, that lie sprouted up over talks about making sure people had access to end of life counseling, since everybody dies, everybody should make sure they have their wills drawn up, their desires to be known should they become comatose, what kind of hospice care they do or do not want.  People are reluctant to seek those out, even though it leads to a lot of 

The last few months of your life may be some of the most expensive- so there are a few options.  You either pour loads of money that could go to help someone else into keeping somebody alive who will die soon and in many cases spend that time in a hospital with poor quality of life.  If the family wants to pay for a procedure to extend the life of a loved one, what's to stop them from paying themselves?  
Furthermore, if two people need a kidney transplant, do you give it to a 30 year old or an 80 year old?  I don't get it, and I also don't get the current system which seems to weigh more along the lines of "who has more money."



> Abortion isn't arguable because those in opposition to abortion consider it to be murder.
> As for gay marriage...  remember, this is the tea party movement we're talking about here.  As far as "conservative" movements go, it leans pretty far toward libertarianism.  That's beside the point anyway, as gay marriage and abortion are both social issues, and the tea party movement focuses on economic issues.



they consider it murder, ok, so that means they're not trying to impose their will on the country through legislation/holding their breath for the next republican president so they can continue stuffing the supreme court with scalia/roberts types and STILL complain it's the *most liberal court ever*?

they're libertarian towards guns and not-having-to-pay-any-taxes but authoritarian toward things they don't like, and if you think the tea party movement focuses on economic issues then you'll also agree that the modern U.S. anti-war movement focuses on being anti-war.  oh wait, neither of them do :V  tea partiers are incredibly socially conservative.



> England.



most violent crime in England is done with knives because of gun laws, crimes which would happen with guns if they were freely available as they are here.  even then, gun crime in England is minuscule in comparison.  6% of homicides involved guns?  wow, that's a lot better than our 70%, huh. :V



> Also, the majority of weapons used in those murders are obtained illegally, so your argument is moot.  Gangsters have no use for weapons that can be obtained legally.



Why not?  A weapon is a weapon, and a weapon purchased on the black market is more expensive than a weapon purchased legally.  Wouldn't it make better fiscal sense to get the cheapest suitable weapon?  Note that I said suitable.  Since most crimes are committed with handguns, and most handguns are semiautomatic, and semiautomatic handguns are legal, as are revolvers.

No really, please.  Explain what the fuck you mean that they have "no use" for weapons based solely on the legality of their obtainment. :V



> So what?  He can like guns, you can like creepy clown pictures.



He has every right to do so as well as hoard guns like a cat lady hoards cats, yes, I'm not arguing against that.  Are you saying I'm not allowed to say he's a creeper for it, or for his many occasions of expressing his desire for an excuse to kill someone?



> You know, i'd love to argue about outsourcing here, but economists tend to do a much better job of that.  Just read this.
> http://mises.org/daily/1488



yes yes here have a mises article
So this guy says that Ford didn't create a consumer class by paying them enough to afford his own product, but his motivation in increasing wages was to avoid turnover?  So what does he consider WalMart, with its huge employee turnover rate and low wages?  If the costs were so high, then WalMart would be even more profitable by increasing wages to avoid turnover.  That's not even remotely the case in WalMart's strategy, they've embraced the opposite and they're successful enough to be the largest retail store in the world.



> Anyway...  You seem more concerned about the "wealth gap" that inevitably comes up in normative economics discussions with progressives than the relatively low poverty here compared to everywhere else in the world.  Our "poor" people would doubtless be considered incredibly rich in Burkina Faso.



This reeks of relativism, just as it's ok for us to torture terrorists- it's entirely justified because they do worse.  Is that really the standard you want to use with the U.S.?  A wealthy person from Burkina Faso would be poor here, too, since it's a matter of costs and standards of living.  comparing burkina faso to the american poor is just as drastic as comparing the american poor to the american rich- except in the latter case, they're compared within the same framework and the same relative costs of living.



> And by the way...  my other argument still stands.  The rich people in this country or abroad are a source of employment.  To tax them is to harm their ability to employ others, and thus, destroy their capacity to produce.  Sure, you may redistribute what they've already produced, but keep in mind, there's less of it to redistribute.



their capacity for production comes from others, it's the reason why "going galt" is fucking stupid.  businessmen have good ideas and the ability to lead and coordinate, but without a labor force they have absolutely nothing, just as an unorganized labor force doesn't have the sort of direction or marketing needed to be successful and profitable outside of a worker's cooperative arrangement.  it's a two way street no matter how you look at it.  just as velocity is direction and magnitude, business owners provide direction and the workers provide the force needed to go in that direction.  the fundamental fucking problem is when one or the other thinks that they are worth more  on one hand, you have executives firing people and awarding themselves the would-be wages to themselves for trimming the fat of a company, and on the other hand you have workers striking for more wages because without them the company is nothing and their demands take away from the ability for the company to function.  BOTH are dysfunctional, libertarian supply side economics push down the scale-balance on the side of the owner, while communism pushes down on the side of the worker: in both cases it leads to utter disaster.

they own the means of production and profit from its efforts, but why the fuck would they go into business unless there's a market for what they're selling?  making stuff doesn't make sense if there's nobody that can/will buy it.



> Perhaps they wouldn't close down United States operations if they could produce something here that people could afford and pay their workers enough to prevent a strike?  (not to mention the taxes)



things seemed pretty ok before NAFTA, the opening of China to western capitalism, and the move from an economy based on actual goods to an economy based on financial instruments.  God, it must have been UNBEARABLE to do business in the United 



> So now people have a right to be employed by someone and to be paid more than that person is willing?  Why the fuck would anyone bother running a business if they can't make it profitable?
> Oh and I love your characterization of the events, sounds really dismal.  You should consider writing novels for a living.



Way to mischaracterize what I said.  Of course nobody would run a business if they couldn't make it profitable.  Just like one company would be crazy to make the same product in one country when they could make it in another country for much, much less.  The problem comes when everyone does it, and there's noone left in the original country to buy the stuff.  Then what?  Sell it to the countries you're making it in?
Hey, that's history.  Welfare and TV for the poor is this empire's bread and circuses, and that's what keeps them pacified, right?  Yet that insurance against a disgruntled riot or uprising is so, so hard for the gated communities to bear.



> paid for by people who would be employing if the government got their noses out of other people's business



hahahahaha
businesses laid people off because of economic worries
then, either by keeping wages the same, or even cutting them, the remaining employees are picking up the slack left by fewer workers
productivity/efficiency 'increases' although now they're paying less in wages, which means better margins, which means there's nothing to fix
and a load of burning out, overworked employees



> as if theft isn't a drastic measure



are you calling taxes theft
it's the cost of living in this country
if you want to take advantage of the services we have here and don't want to pay for them, fuck off



> Nobody should have to pay over half of what they make in taxes, and once the dreaded "Bush tax cuts" expire, they will be if you add together state, local, and federal.
> Reagan wasn't superman.  His predecessor was a nightmare.



They did under Eisenhower and didn't seem to have too many problems.  The tax cuts are expiring only for people making over $250k, which is where the burden should be.  When the top 5% possess over half the wealth in this country, yet pay nowhere near 
Reagan was a nightmare that continues to this day, and lol at "JIMMY CARTER: HISTORY'S GREATEST MONSTER."



> Yeah, because people HAVE to buy products from these EVIL rich fat cats who are RAPING everyone.
> Where do you get this information, the back of a cereal box?



What's the alternative in this day and age?  The hippie co-op communes you despise?  The reality is you have to earn income somehow to feed, clothe and shelter yourself, and what used to be a factory job or an office job or a support job simply doesn't exist like it used to.  The employment situation of this country has changed drastically, and unemployment isn't a function of people who don't want to work- it's that there are no jobs available.  And if there are, it's part time work at a WalMart.



> I mean any economics class, and talk to the fucking professor after class.



ok



> You've made that quip about the Laffer curve before, and you know that you're bullshitting.  We just want something more like the Coolidge administration, is that too hard to ask?



No, I'm really not.  People who cite the Laffer curve cannot comprehend the possibility that our tax system as it stands is below the peak- cut it more, and they'll assert that our tax rates are still too high and are diminishing our possible returns.  Of course, they don't really care, it's all about trying to put Grover Norquist's dream into play.

I'm sorry, did you mean Hoover?  Besides, with the globalized economy the old isolationist/protectionist thing doesn't fly like it used to.



> Sorry about your attack, you totally got owned.


 
if only conservative FEMA death camp fairy tales weren't a delusional myth

by the way we should typefuck later it's pretty satisfying to get off with a political "adversary" after a discussion like this

i suggest you try it some time

p.s. this'll be my last post on this topic because it was supposed to be about time travel, fuck.  plus i'm getting tired and sloppy and there's too many WORDS and AGRUES to keep track of.
fuck
tea partiers ruin everything start a new thread


----------



## Code Red (Sep 13, 2010)

^tl;dr   

Shit, where is my De Lorain when I need it?  :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 13, 2010)

Sauvignon said:


> And that's when I came up with the idea for the flux capacitor, basically a shoebox full of rope lights, which is what makes time travel possible.


 
So _you're_ the bugger who took off with my sonic screwdriver!


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

Code Red said:


> ^tl;dr
> 
> Shit, where is my De Lorain when I need it?  :V


 
i own
suck my dick


----------



## Telnac (Sep 13, 2010)

Bobskunk said:


> that's fucking retarded, origin point would be at the center of the universe, not us


Good luck finding the center of the Universe.  Chances are pretty darn good that no such place exists.





insan3guy said:


> i love how this whole time travel thread  totally turned into a fucking politics talk.  gawd people....


Yeah, doing my best to ignore that.  I'll happily throw myself into a political debate... but seriously, not in a thread about TIME TRAVEL!  Last I checked, Ronald Reagan didn't go back in time to kick it with Abe Lincoln, so there's no reason for anyone to discussing politics in this thread.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 13, 2010)

Telnac said:


> Good luck finding the center of the Universe.  Chances are pretty darn good that no such place exists.



You're right.  My original reasoning was that with the massive event the big bang theory describes would have been that point.  Much like at the very center of the earth where all directions are "up," every bit of matter could be described as being a certain distance and direction away from that point.  But I was mistaken, since that's applying a Cartesian coordinate type of thinking to... something that doesn't work like that.  The thing I'd convinced myself was if Earth moved away from the point where you traveled forward in time, you'd not only be dealing with Earth's orbit around the sun, but the sun's movement itself, and the Milky Way in the universe itself.  It's all moot because THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME HOW DUMB CAN I BE.

Relativity already accounts for "an hour in the future the planet will have moved 108,000km" type issues and I completely forgot about it: Momentum.  I also forgot that in a given frame of reference, everything moves relative to that point, whether it's the Sun or the moon or New Jersey, so, yeah.  einstein owns, the entire thing i was thinking was wrong because i forgot all my nerdy hours reading all this stuff out of a stupid reactionary political spat.

I WAS WRONG I WAS DUMB
FUCK ME SO HARD augh


----------



## Kreevox (Sep 13, 2010)

I hope tycho and fl are done, because I'm tempted to be "that guy" and open up a thread in the appropriate forum titled "Tycho and Fenrir Lupus' political arguments" or maybe, for more general purposes "The thread for thread-derailing arguments" that way you can pull that card when somebody starts to argue with you


----------



## Timmy_Ramone (Sep 13, 2010)

Tycho said:


> I know a better one.  Just go to a Tea Party demonstration.  You'll be able to FEEL time going in reverse as the hands on the clock of human societal progress spin backwards.


LOL -- good one!

A favorite quote of mine is from Stephen Hawking who once said, "If time travel were possible we'd be inundated with tourists from the future."

(A variation on that quote is, "If time travel were possible, we'd know about it by now.")

Though Hawking has said time travel is possible, but only _forward_ (as discussed elsewhere in this thread) and never backwards.

And I'll throw in another quote, this one from Henri Bergson: "Time keeps everything from happening all at once."


----------



## Atrak (Sep 13, 2010)

ScruffStuff said:


> So I've developed a time travel theory today. Hear me out on this one.
> 
> The earth spins at around 700-900mph at the lattitude of the USA
> So if I build an aircraft that can achieve such speeds, which is entirely possible
> ...


 
Already thought of that. I'm going to use it to have a 47h 59m day. I'm also considering using it in reverse to skip a day. Like my 21st birthday. That kind of timing would take a personal aircraft, though.



Xenke said:


> No.
> 
> I forget how, but one theory I heard for time travel involved light, and one could only travel back to when the machine was first made.
> 
> Most other theories I've heard though are retarded though.


 


JesusFish said:


> Matter cannot travel the speed of light.
> 
> But using wormholes, we can send matter across a specific distance in far less time, increasing "speed", although not necessarily letting the object go the speed of light itself.


 
Light is weird because it is both a particle and a wave. Momentum = mass x velocity. Light has no mass, so if you convert matter to light, it's mass will become zero, and it's velocity will increase to infinity in order to balance the equation. That is a way of achieving teleportation. But then, it's probably easier to use the Z-space theory.

Time travel itself? Entirely possible. Just covert your matter to waves and reverse it. Now that I've said it so simply, make like the government and complicate it.


----------

