A heated Debate: Time Travel

Quote:

---

as far as your ton of evidence that proves a blackhole is real. . . pleae enlighten me. . .

---

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bh_obsv.html
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12jan_1.htm
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spaces...spinningbh.htm
I could get more but A) I have better things to do, and B) Several of my sources are in books by others and thats copyright infringment.

As for darkmatter...
It is the unknown gravity of our universe, when examining the speed of our universe it was observed that we are traveling so fast that our entire system should be torn apart, clearly we are stil intact, this extra gravity is what has been called "dark matter"

Quote:

---

How Much Dark Matter Is There?
Cosmologists like to talk about the amount of matter in the universe in terms of a parameter called Omega. Omega is defined so that a closed universe - a universe that is massive enough that it eventually collapses back onto itself - has Omega larger than 1; an `open' universe, one that expands outwards forever, has Omega less than 1; and a `flat' universe, perfectly balanced between the two, has Omega = 1.
The amount of visible matter in the universe is about Omega = 0.05; not very much at all. Theoreticians like to believe that for the Universe, the total of all of the mass is Omega = 1; this would mean that dark matter makes up the other Omega = 0.95 - 95% of the universe would be dark matter! More realistically, there isn't much evidence for Omega being larger than about 0.4; this would make the amount of dark matter be Omega = 0.35.

Even so, that means that 88% of our universe is a complete mystery.

---

Source: http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm3.html

You may also want to read this:
http://www.th-record.com/1998/03/03-01-98/univer.htm

Just a thought, isnt that quote state that there must be more than 1 universe... i mean, how can they define different types of universes on the omega scale, if they only know of 1 and have hardly even scrathed the surface of comprehension of it

Gravity distorting time is not a misnomer. Even Steven Hawking uses the word "Space Time". I admit some of my statements weren’t conductive with what I actually believe. I was trying to formulate theories on how time travel could happen in the physical universe with a limitation on speed. What I really believe is that a singularity exists at the center of a black hole and everything passing the event horizon will smash into it and become nothing but additional mass. I don’t think they are gateways or anything else and I don’t see the possibility of overcoming the speed of light without some serious new discovery of cosmic design.

The fact that light is bent by gravity is the basis of the term “Space Time” because the speed of light in reference to distance in the cosmos is the measurement of time. Space is not flat (linear). Weather you shape space as a cone or pear, my point is – it’s not flat. Light traveling from point A to point B is not going by strait line. It is distorted and bent as it waves around gravitational objects. That is space time in a nutshell. Space and time are indeed related because of our perception on the effects of light and the time it takes to get someplace in relation to one’s point of view. Of course these dilating effects on time are only present at extreme speeds. These dilations in time are explained by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and expanded on by Steven Hawking. Now when you are talking a large gravitational object like a black hole, then space time dilation becomes significant. Rather than explain it in my own words. Here is a link for starters. http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia...HolesToWhere?#

Time is so distorted by gravity that an observer watching someone pass into a black hole from earth, might not ever see the object fall because time is severely slowed as the black hole stretches space time. Those movies are NASA supercomputer simulations on the theory.

Theories are abounding of course. This entire thread is based solely on theories. After all it is difficult to prove black holes exist. That was, up until Hawking. Oh, Bballad thanks, I forgot about reading Hawking’s theories that black holes are spewing particles from their sides, still struggling with comprehension on that and I am going to reread those papers again. The problem is black holes drop completely out of our visible universe. Nothing escapes the gravity well so we cannot perceive ANYTHING. It’s empty and void of our universe.

What can be perceived however is gravitational flux on nearby objects and we can record those observations and analyze them mathematically. One could have stated a weak argument against black holes, up until Hubble was put into space and mankind was able to use instruments to measure further and further out into space. All perceptions of black holes exist from high energy perceptions why outside any human capability. Most are from radio and x-ray observations based in England (go Brits!). Some black holes are even being reclassified into micro quasars as our reach of perception gets better and better.

Perhaps in another 20 years some of the advanced theories discussed here will be common place, like black holes are now. Those who believe they don’t exist, you are not alone. As posted in another thread, Einstein didn’t believe they did either. He thought theri presence were just anomalies in his mathematics while producing his theory of General Relativity. He died too soon. :)

Oh I can't resist... since the nearest Black Hole to earth is 1,600 light years and that is a fairly new discovery... a probe would have to have been launched from earth in 400 AD. Those Romans were smarted than I thought!!! ;)

Everything looks good on paper ...

Quote:

---

Those Romans were smarted than I thought!!!

---

obviously alot "smarted" than you :P lol, JOKES!

anyways, a probe can reach 3 times the speed of sound (or something like that) in about 1.something seconds in space... now thats some hefty acceleration

maybe what i saw they were just hypothesising what would happen IF they sent a probe into a black hole.

High2Risk: you say a whatif type scenario, no manmade object has ever traveled far enough to reach a black hole. Heck only a one that I know of has left the solar system.( one of the voyager probes)

NASA and Cabridge (UK) have conducted several models of black holes and the effects of objects. They are all just theoretical models.

RoadClosed: then that is probably what i watched. it was a documentary on the effects of blackholes, and i guess all the "evidence" they produced was theorised and hansnt yet been proven, its been a few years since i seen it btw :blinking:

it is quite possible in theory but not in practical life as u cant get so much amount of energy to perform time shift
of course an black hole or something like that can provide so much energy but also u cant get it done in next 70 years at least

immence field (electrical or magnetic ) can also help but only to electromagnetic things

My point of view.

Time travel is possible, but only into the future.

Gravitational time dialation or velocity time dialaition will allow you to. Either go very fast or sit near a black hole for a while and theoretically 10mins of your perspective of time will be 10 years of time for the inhabitants of earth. (or any other ratio dependant on velocity/gravity)


I don't beleive you can travel backwards in time. Matter, in larger than quatum sizes, can not exist in two places in the same time.

The atoms in your eye's lens are the same ones that you were born with and hence going backwards in time to a point where you and an earlier version of yourself existed can not occure. - A bit of tin pot sicence but it works for me.

Hmm, i can see this thread it slowly winding down, and id just like to say thanks for all your input, was a good thread which got more popularity than i thought :)

thanks for your poll results and will see ya all round the forums :)