But if the body is constantly breaking down due to various failing systems, wouldnt the body remain the same unless you yourself were in the stream of time? So wouldnt you actually stay the same age if the machine you'd HAVE to be in to move that fast be the one moving at the speed of light where as you and time BOTH remain at the same speed?

You'd both be at the same speed relative to each other, but you'd both be faster than light relative to the rest of the universe. I don't think you could pick on object inside of the machine to be the piece that ages slower.

Travelling back in time is a bad idea, mostly because doing so would revert all matter to the state it was in at that point in time. Where do you think all of the matter you are comprised of was located back then? Not in your body! You would essentially destroy yourself.

Nah, they failed on that. Something like they needed to account for insertscientificwordhere twice (and they didn't in their first calculations), or something weird like that.

If you believe in the "reincarnating" universe theory, going back to the very breaking point of a universe and the beginning of the next would be a great explosion. First, explosion. Then as time goes by, we get to the point we are in now, planets etc. Then, everything starts to go back into itself and break down itself, so basically less and less exist all the time. Then, once everything is in an infinitely small spot, a new explosion and a new universe is created. So yeah, going back to one of the new galaxies born would indeed destroy you, but a bit after or before it and you should be fine.

Oh this time travel discussion is so much fun!

@Idon'tunderstand: From how I understood it, they did it twice and it succeeded both times. Buut who am I to confirm anything without a source? But ok, let's speak theoretically about this: It did actually happen. (a particle moved faster than light), what effects could it have or not have on anything or everything?


As for a thing getting younger due to high speed, wouldn't it theoretically be possible to destroy the very device you created by doing this, as it gets "younger"? Sort of like taking away the individual lego pieces that built it up? And also kill a person because he'd be oblitareted into a single cell?

I think that time travel is theoretically plausible however due to laws in place by physics we may not perceive it as able to exist. This is due to some weird law I forget the name of it that stipulates nature abhors a vacuum and as a result it seeks to keep that vacuum from happening or to fill it. It is primarily due to this that people believe the grandfather paradox cannot happen because something in nature would keep you from murdering your grandfather. Something like you being killed making you unable to kill your grandfather, machines not working etc... with the only work around to this being parallel dimensions.

When you start dealing with multi-dimensional space it gets problematic and complicated with proving its existence even more difficult.


Dealing with assassin's creed I don't find it to be time travel per-say but unlocking memories in your genes. Much like animals have instincts those characteristics are programmed into their genes through certain means. Have memories past down through genes is an interesting concept that i've only seen a few times. The primary reason the MC is allowed to do all of those things is that they happened you're just reliving them even if you go around slaughtering people.


For me personally I wouldn't want to time travel in fear of causing some kind of epic disaster. The diseases in my body would ravage Ancient Egypt calling since my flu is 100x different than the stuff back then.

Scientists believe that the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva could be used to facilitate time travel. Someone who has a similar device in the future could theoretically use it to travel back to the previous Large Hadron Collider. It would mean that there's no chance of using it to go back and meet Leonardo Da Vinci.

Again though, "time" is simply the arrangement of matter at a certain point. In order to go "back" to an earlier point all of the matter must be arranged as it was at that point, meaning that you would be disassembled during the "travel" so that your molecules could return to their proper place at that point.

I'm just posting what I heard. Make of it what you will.

Maybe I'm being naive but how do you know we've not had met time travelers?

Or maybe when people are sent back in time they are impregnated with memories from that time period so they don't know they're time travelers until they are taken back to their own time, at which point they remember everything?

I have no idea if time travel is possible or not, but if it ever does prove to be, I'll be going straight back to the Cretaceous period. Then the late 40s/early 50s.

As I understand it, the universe and space time are something like a balloon - a thin membrane that is still expanding. We live on the skin of the balloon.

If you could pierce through that membrane and go inside of the balloon, you would be going back in time, back toward the point when the universe was one infinitesimally small dot, before the balloon was inflated by the Big Bang.

Doing so would mean tearing a hole in space-time. A black hole is a natural rift in space time. So is a worm hole, if they actually exist. So if you were able to pass through a wormhole or the singularity of a black hole you could pop back into existence at another point in time - and space. :dizzy:

This is the first 2,011th year since the supposed birth of Christ.

Time is the standard medium through which causality is transferred. Things earlier in time cause things later in time. However, it may not be the only medium through which causality is transferred. If time travel is possible, you may have a chain of events like this:

February 1st, 2012, Primus: I eat a bad pizza
February 2nd, 2012, Primus: I travel back in time
February 1st, 2012, Secunda: I prevent my past self from eating the bad pizza.
February 2nd, 2012, Secunda: I tell all my friends not to eat the bad pizza.

"Before" the events of timeline Secunda occur, "first" timeline Primus must reach the point at which time-travel occurs.

IF timetravel is possible (which I doubt for entirely different reasons), then the lack of time-tourists makes perfect sense. We're just too early in the chain of causality.

every year the internal clocks on satellites need resetting because they gain a few seconds due to them travelling in the orbit. I dont know the theory or the name of it but its real. If there was a train that circumferanced the Earth that travelled faster that the speed of sound time on Earth would go quicker than that of the people on the train or something like that.

What about slamming a revolving door? jkjk but not really...

Well I'm younger now than I was when I was 7.


Take that science! :flamethrower:

I dont believe it is possible in the sense that it is believed to be possible. One could however time travel to the future but not the past as time is man created so therefore it does not exist outside man's realm.

Time doesn't slow down for the traveler. As you approach the speed of light, you achieve http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/timedilation.html. So time elsewhere is stretched (from the travelers' frame of reference), but it can't be infinitely so. If faster than light travel in the conventional sense (straight from point A to point B ) were possible, time elsewhere might be wrapped around so that it would reverse. Look at the link and view the formula. For reverse time to happen, you would need to make the denominator negative, which means Velocity (v) would have to be greater than the Speed of Light ( c ). It can't divide by zero or else the whole universe blows up

http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/devide-by-zero.jpg

I don't think that it's physically possible.

It's one of the reasons I wish an ex GF would divide herself by zero..

Anywho, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html

simply stated, the laws of physics might turn out not to be necessarily universal and could quite well be sorta.. localized phenomena.



Also.. temporal displacement a.k.a time traveling

it seems to me that everyone is looking at the problem from the same angle as the scientists of the time looked at the pressing engineering problems of powered flight.

It was their belief, seen in the light of their time, that it was best suited to build an aircraft that could start straight into the air vertically, by method of flapping the wings, and powered by a massive steam engine.
Alexander Graham Bell, 1898

We know that flight isn't impossible, but trying it that way sure as [censored] is..

Because this is what the scientists of the time had witnessed birds doing in nature. And the steam engine was by far the most powerful engine around at the time, what with the newfangled internal combustion engine barely capable of pushing a horseless carriage along faster than thirty miles an hour, it wasn't even seriously considered at the time.

And those two bicycle repairmen from Ohio were laughed at for even mentioning it..


this is where we are at the moment it seems.. we want to find the most powerful contemporary equivalent to the steam engine and forcefully pull a time machine vertically up through time by using some sort of mechanically wing-flapping time dilation device.. using euclidean math to traverse non euclidean soace..

and that ain't gonna fly.




ooh.. gotta run.. there's a party next week I wanna be at twice :hubbahubba:

I have traveled through time from 1989 to tell you: yes, time travel is possible

because it is imposible. it is not like every moment in time is being recorded with a dvr or something, and that you can hit the super scientific "rewind" button.

and time is more accuratly a measurement of distance and gravity than it actually is common mistaken for a physical "train track" that can be rode forwards and backwards upon.

If time travel is possible, we would have seem humans from the future by know.

Who said we haven't? :shifty: