Timetravel: Fact or fiction?

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Then again, the big bang theory does state that there may have been a universe before ours, since there must be a Big Crunch before a Big Bang...

I think you a referring to the Oscillating universe theory, when you say there must have been a big crunch before the Big Bang. Here's a summary of the major theories of the origin of the universe:

 

[Amenhotep7]

Wait a minute-
So basically this chart says that the big bang happened out of nothing? The Law of Conservation and Mass says: Matter can not be created or destroyed, only changed to a different form There must be a big crunch before a big bang, since matter can't be created, right? If this is true, then wouldn't the oscillation model be correct?

 

[Quasar1011]

Yes, 6 of the 7 models say that the Big Bang happened out of nothing. Even the oscillating universe model reduces the previous universe to a singularity, before the new universe explodes into existence. When do you think the Law of Conservation and Mass (1st Law of Thermodynamics) began? Before, during, or after the Big Bang? Keep in mind physicists can detect events up to 10-43 seconds after the origin of the universe.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Wait a minute-
So basically this chart says that the big bang happened out of nothing? The Law of Conservation and Mass says: Matter can not be created or destroyed, only changed to a different form There must be a big crunch before a big bang, since matter can't be created, right? If this is true, then wouldn't the oscillation model be correct?

Actually, one of the latest 'string theories' suggests that there are some ten or eleven dimensions, and that there are 'branes' (i.e. 'membranes') existing within these other dimensions.
If two of these higher dimensional 'branes' collided with each other, then where they touched there would be a huge release of energy.....which from a limited three dimensional perspective would look just like the big bang, with energy apparently appearing from out of nothing (as for what these 'branes' are, how they were created, and where they come from...... ).

Anyway, I have a very simple way of disproving time travel....
....if it was possible, then all the betting shops would be full of people from the future!

 

[Amenhotep7]

Good one, Kryten!

Ya, your theory makes sense, and so does Quasar's.

Quasar, your bit about the law, yeah, I guess it makes sense it came afterwards.

 

[Souron]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
Souron-
about that quote, IT WAS JUST A QUOTE! What you said makes sense. I didn't make the quote. Ask Firaxis why that fake quote was made.

OK. I'm still curios about the answer perhalps I shall make a new thread.

Now that I have that out of my system, I'm no philosopher/scientist. I'm a complete amateur. So let me address your hopefully constructive criticism as an amateur.

Ofcource, I myself am no scientist. please all input (assuming it is new and not the samething over and over) is benifical

Now to address the next bit:

So the fundimental forces cause movement wich intun cause time? How do you "cause time"?

You cause time because you cause movement. Movement makes time, or rather, time needs movement so much, it's almost like that. I'm trying to get everyone happy with my new theory. So how does this sound. Remember, I'm an amateur, not a pro:

Time needs movement, and movement needs a force to act upon it, and the force is the byproduct of the fundamental forces of the universe. Without movement time is non-existant.

"the world is heald up by a tower of turtles." please dissprove, egolaging that these turtles effect us in no other way then holding the world up.

You can't. Simmilarly it is posible for time to exist without any movement. yes movement creats the need and thereby prouf for time. thus time is said to exist, the turtles arn't.

To sum up. If fundemental forces exist, then motion exists, wich in turn implies time exists. Now do the fundimental forces exist?

How is that theory? And the last bit I need to address:

Space is an illution?

Space is not an illusion. Space is nothingness. The stuff in space is matter, not an illusion. I'm addressing the topic of time.

the diffrence between space and time is irrelivant to motion, aside from the imposibility of instantanios motion. Gravity effects "the fabric of spacetime" in the same mannor. therefore time can be looked at as a 4th demention and sares most proporties with space.

Also matter implies motion and the fundimental forces apply. It consists of attoms, wich have moving parts.

 

[Amenhotep7]

I guess that makes sense how gravity effects spacetime...Are u saying that since gravity movement, the movement is irrelevant? So that theory would state: Time is an effect of gravitational forces. Right?

 

[Sir John]

what u can basicly say about that stuff ur discussing now is:

Matter exsist.

Thats about the only fact.

 

[Amenhotep7]

Yes, I suppose so...Matter exists...Or does it exist in our minds? Oooohh...spooky!

 

[Souron]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
I guess that makes sense how gravity effects spacetime...Are u saying that since gravity movement, the movement is irrelevant? So that theory would state: Time is an effect of gravitational forces. Right?

No gravity is not realy a fundimental force, like the others. It is the bending of space time. electromagnitism is a better example.

 

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by Souron
No gravity is not realy a fundimental force, like the others.

This chart is from a physics website. Notice it lists gravity as one of the 4 fundamental forces. Weak and strong refer to the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force.

 

[Amenhotep7]

so my theory is correct, Quasar?

 

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
so my theory is correct, Quasar?

The oscillating universe theory?

 

[amadeus]

You can only travel forward, and for one second you're traveling, the time changes by one second.

 

[Amenhotep7]

No, the Time is an effect of gravitational forces.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
No, the Time is an effect of gravitational forces.

You are completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Amenhotep7]

How so? If gravity causes movement, and time is irrelevant without movement, how is this wrong?

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
How so? If gravity causes movement, and time is irrelevant without movement, how is this wrong?

Without movement you said ? but its imposible unless you are in a univers at 0 degree Kelvin ( no energy at all into the system). Who know what happen then into quantum level. I read something about massive matter condensation at this level.

 

[Souron]

Originally posted by Quasar1011


This chart is from a physics website. Notice it lists gravity as one of the 4 fundamental forces. Weak and strong refer to the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force.

this is from the string theory, not proven fact. gravatons have not been observed and until then you cannot say exept in theories that gravaty is a fundimental force like the others.

 

[Souron]

According to the unsertainty prinsible, you cannot know both the electric and the magnettic charge of a point in space time. Inorder for a point to have an electric or a megnetic charge, it must have Energy.

Therefore a point in space time cannot have no electric and megnetic charge (both as 0), As If it were true we would know by measuring the energy of that point thus defing the uncertainty prinsible.

To sum up every point in space time has energy.