I get it.
I understand it perfectly: it's the time paradox, isn't it?
No. A paradox is a series of true statements that contradict each other.
But seriously, did that stupid ***** when he went back in time didn't notice that he now looks like that mysterious drifter that abandoned her and also didn't noticed that she looks like what he looked like several years in the past?
The story would be more compelling if the main character wasn't an utter retard. Seriously, who impregnates themself?
"Energy is constant." "Matter is constant." Not true. The collective sum of all changes in energy and mass must be zero, however. Matter can change into energy and energy can change into matter, but there is no loss or gain when the total amount of matter-energy is considered.
Well, what's what I meant, but I was in class, so I was kind of spaced.
Quote from Vorya Browark »
"Time bends (i.e. going faster or slower) but never breaks (i.e. going backwards." Not true. If space tears, time tears with it. Such is the concept of 4D spacetime. Space can be shown to tear in the formation of a black hole, and therefore time also tears
Not correct. Here time just bends to infinity-1, but distance is completely messed up, meaning you travel 10 KM at 100.000 KM/H for 1.000.000 years and still getting only halfway. (1.000.000 more years, and you'll just be 3/4 there, and so on)
EDIT: Also, if you were unlucky enough not to get sucked into a black hole, it will, from your point of view, go incredibly slowly, but for anyone watching, you will be gone in an instant.
Yeah, I guess we didn't discuss that, but we're talking about to objects (persons), so it's the speed relative to each other.
But people could infer from the current discussion that time is passing faster for one person and slower for the other, when in reality both of the people in question would pass through time slower than the other by the same amount until a "deciding" acceleration is produced by one.
That is true... We need a second stationary point. S=0?
"Energy is constant." "Matter is constant." Not true. The collective sum of all changes in energy and mass must be zero, however. Matter can change into energy and energy can change into matter, but there is no loss or gain when the total amount of matter-energy is considered.
Well, what's what I meant, but I was in class, so I was kind of spaced.
Quote from Vorya Browark »
"Time bends (i.e. going faster or slower) but never breaks (i.e. going backwards." Not true. If space tears, time tears with it. Such is the concept of 4D spacetime. Space can be shown to tear in the formation of a black hole, and therefore time also tears
Not correct. Here time just bends to infinity-1, but distance is completely messed up, meaning you travel 10 KM at 100.000 KM/H for 1.000.000 years and still getting only halfway. (1.000.000 more years, and you'll just be 3/4 there, and so on)
Spacetime has infinite curvature in a black hole; it is a tear. Due to the very nature of black hole though, this potentially cataclysmic alteration of spacetime is confined to the interior of the black hole.
Your analysis is relative to an observer safely outside the black hole's grasp, watching another person enter the black hole. Distortion of spacetime would cause, as you said, the person to appear to get increasingly closer to the black hole's event horizon at an increasingly slower pace. In fact it could never be measured that the person ever reaches the event horizon; that would require an infinite amount of the external observer's proper time.
However, within the frame of reference of the person entering the black hole, they certainly would pass through straight through the event horizon, travel beyond the infinite temporal slowdown, and inescapably be subjected to whatever uncertain quantum principle manifests at the point of a tear in the fabric of spacetime.
Whether this model allows for backwards time travel is still an entirely theoretical matter.
I am in awe. Yes, that is correct. But I still disagree about black holes being tears, I think they are merely hyperdense, and bent time into just above infinite (infinite being t=0, aka. Big Bang).
I am in awe. Yes, that is correct. But I still disagree about black holes being tears, I think they are merely hyperdense, and bent time into just above infinite (infinite being t=0, aka. Big Bang).
So you're postulating that the curvature does approach, but does not reach, infinite. After some thought I see that this could in fact be the case by virtue of quantum forces preventing a complete tear. Quantum Mechanics isn't my specialty, sometimes I don't fully appreciate its effects.
I still think it is quite telling that assuming a tear can take place, the resulting mathematics are still sound; the numbers still add up. No numerical illogicities are found.
I'm not too familiar with quantum mechanics either; my mind is merely 16 years old, but I think that if something were to reach infinite weight/mass/density/speed/whatever it would create something of a big bang, or something alike. I don't think a time tear would exist, as it would tear the whole universe apart, and a gap to the past would create a paradox if ANYTHING went trough, mass or energy. And as far as I know, there are no one-way time rips.
This is all theoretically, as is the entire thread. Thus, it can happen, theoretically, and all theories are equally considered. I see no reason why backwards aging is not possible.
While the concept of backwards flowing time is still in the realm of theoretical physics, much of the underlying principles discussed in this thread have been experimentally confirmed on multiple independent accounts.
If said statement is true, then how do we know we cannot go faster than light? We can go faster than sound, but I see no reason for not going faster than light. How would it not be possible? What stops you from going faster than light?
You can only find these things out by testing them, yet nobody has tested. Thus, everything and anything can happen until proven false.
OK, imagine a particle as a balloon and the air being energy. When the balloon is full, like, 1 more atom (energy) would make it explode, the "particle" will be going at light speed. Any more air (energy), and the "particle" would explode, and so, seize to move.
No. A paradox is a series of true statements that contradict each other.
But seriously, did that stupid ***** when he went back in time didn't notice that he now looks like that mysterious drifter that abandoned her and also didn't noticed that she looks like what he looked like several years in the past?
The story would be more compelling if the main character wasn't an utter retard. Seriously, who impregnates themself?
Well, what's what I meant, but I was in class, so I was kind of spaced.
Not correct. Here time just bends to infinity-1, but distance is completely messed up, meaning you travel 10 KM at 100.000 KM/H for 1.000.000 years and still getting only halfway. (1.000.000 more years, and you'll just be 3/4 there, and so on)
EDIT: Also, if you were unlucky enough not to get sucked into a black hole, it will, from your point of view, go incredibly slowly, but for anyone watching, you will be gone in an instant.
That is true... We need a second stationary point. S=0?
I am in awe. Yes, that is correct. But I still disagree about black holes being tears, I think they are merely hyperdense, and bent time into just above infinite (infinite being t=0, aka. Big Bang).
I'm not too familiar with quantum mechanics either; my mind is merely 16 years old, but I think that if something were to reach infinite weight/mass/density/speed/whatever it would create something of a big bang, or something alike. I don't think a time tear would exist, as it would tear the whole universe apart, and a gap to the past would create a paradox if ANYTHING went trough, mass or energy. And as far as I know, there are no one-way time rips.
OK, imagine a particle as a balloon and the air being energy. When the balloon is full, like, 1 more atom (energy) would make it explode, the "particle" will be going at light speed. Any more air (energy), and the "particle" would explode, and so, seize to move.
what do
that still kills you, because you're in the universe, and you'd delete yourself
so you might as well just say "i dunno" :biggrin.gif: