Topic: Time travel possible, scientist claim.
sim !!hXKXHhLro started this discussion 15 years ago #3,016
The Owl !yshAAUvyds joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #55,016
Old news.jpg
pizza day joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,489
this thread needs more replies
rarity !pXPONYaXV2 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,494
> theoretical physicistsBorn this Way !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,507
> scientist claim
dat ESL
dat ESL
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,510
rarity !pXPONYaXV2 replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,511
nimanj joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,512
geologists agree
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,513
rarity !pXPONYaXV2 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,516
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,518
rarity !pXPONYaXV2 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,519
@previous (F)We're really taking this off-topic?
> EDIT: I really posted the same image twice in the same thread?
(Edited 43 seconds later.)
Leonidas !nBpim1wazU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #55,982
Time travel is a fiction.
The Owl !yshAAUvyds replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #56,174
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #56,189
Time travel possible (for sub-atomic particles)
meh (Yes, we've theorized this for ages. Call me when you have secured a hoverboard.)
meh (Yes, we've theorized this for ages. Call me when you have secured a hoverboard.)
The Owl !yshAAUvyds replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #56,193
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,254
@previous (The Owl !yshAAUvyds)
I'm fairly sure that if time travel was invented we would be seeing people coming back by now. It seems to be limited to sub-atomic events. :(
I'm fairly sure that if time travel was invented we would be seeing people coming back by now. It seems to be limited to sub-atomic events. :(
The Owl !yshAAUvyds replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,257
@previous (I)
There's a theory that the earliest time that can be travelled to is the time of the first time travel, the 'year zero'. Also It's particles only, it says in the article that people cannot travel back in time.
There's a theory that the earliest time that can be travelled to is the time of the first time travel, the 'year zero'. Also It's particles only, it says in the article that people cannot travel back in time.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,269
LOL matter.
Enjoy being locked to the conveyor belt of linear time, meatfags. >:3
Enjoy being locked to the conveyor belt of linear time, meatfags. >:3
protip !tyLmN8C16E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,284
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,286
Leonidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,309
@56,174 (The Owl !yshAAUvyds)
> Science disagrees, faggot.
Time travel has never been proven.
I believe they misinterpretted the math. If you go near the speed of light, you slow down. At the speed of light you stop moving. Faster than light, you move in reverse and not travel back through time.
> Science disagrees, faggot.
Time travel has never been proven.
I believe they misinterpretted the math. If you go near the speed of light, you slow down. At the speed of light you stop moving. Faster than light, you move in reverse and not travel back through time.
The Owl !yshAAUvyds replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,313
@previous (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
> I believe they misinterpretted the math.
Are you qualified to suggest that? Your usage of General Relativity is amusing, btw. It's well known that relativity doesn't apply with subatomic particles.
> I believe they misinterpretted the math.
Are you qualified to suggest that? Your usage of General Relativity is amusing, btw. It's well known that relativity doesn't apply with subatomic particles.
dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,315
dreamworks4mayor '11 !xPoNIEsltA double-posted this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,317
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,318
Leonidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,328
@56,313 (The Owl !yshAAUvyds)
> >I believe they misinterpretted the math.
>
> Are you qualified to suggest that? Your usage of General Relativity is amusing, btw. It's well known that relativity doesn't apply with subatomic particles.
It doesn't mean I'm wrong just because I don't have a fancy PhD or I mention my idea on a forum full of people more interested in flaming than hearing intellectual ideas.
> >I believe they misinterpretted the math.
>
> Are you qualified to suggest that? Your usage of General Relativity is amusing, btw. It's well known that relativity doesn't apply with subatomic particles.
It doesn't mean I'm wrong just because I don't have a fancy PhD or I mention my idea on a forum full of people more interested in flaming than hearing intellectual ideas.
The Owl !yshAAUvyds replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,330
@previous (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
> It doesn't mean I'm wrong just because I don't have a fancy PhD
no but it does mean that you have no clue what you are talking about and are 99.99% likely to be wrong.
> It doesn't mean I'm wrong just because I don't have a fancy PhD
no but it does mean that you have no clue what you are talking about and are 99.99% likely to be wrong.
Leonidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,347
@previous (The Owl !yshAAUvyds)
I am right though. Can you disprove me or are you merely out to flame?
I am right though. Can you disprove me or are you merely out to flame?
The Owl !yshAAUvyds replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,363
@previous (Leonidas !nBpim1wazU)
> It's well known that relativity doesn't apply with subatomic particles.
For proof see: The need for quantum physics
> It's well known that relativity doesn't apply with subatomic particles.
For proof see: The need for quantum physics
Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,373
Light has no mass.
The larger the mass of a particle or object, the slower it travels. Any particle has more mass than light, therefore nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
The larger the mass of a particle or object, the slower it travels. Any particle has more mass than light, therefore nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,376
Leonidas !nBpim1wazU replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #56,382
@56,373 (Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6)
> Light has no mass.
> The larger the mass of a particle or object, the slower it travels.
The only thing about the speed of light is that there's light in a vacuum which is as fast as we get it, light going normally which is slower, and then light travelling through a Bose-Einstein condensate which can be made to go about the speed of a car.
> Any particle has more mass than light, therefore nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
This does validate my theory. If you travel faster than light, then you move in reverse thus cancelling out the excess speed making it impossible to travel faster than light.
> Light has no mass.
> The larger the mass of a particle or object, the slower it travels.
The only thing about the speed of light is that there's light in a vacuum which is as fast as we get it, light going normally which is slower, and then light travelling through a Bose-Einstein condensate which can be made to go about the speed of a car.
> Any particle has more mass than light, therefore nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
This does validate my theory. If you travel faster than light, then you move in reverse thus cancelling out the excess speed making it impossible to travel faster than light.