I don't really care what the current thinking is. -_- I'm saying, by definition of time, you cannot go back in time. You cannot go forward in time, you cannot slow time, you cannot speed up time.

AFAIK... no one with any sense thinks time travel is possible...

However... with simple physics it's easy to explain how future prediction is possible and quantum physics gives us a limitation on that (the observer effect).

Yeah... clusters are an even grander scale.

It's just an idea of mine at the minute... nothing to really back it up - lol

Special relativity... you can speed up / slow down time from the point of view of your intert reference frame.

Even proven on our planet with atomic clocks on scram-jets.

You can move faster than events going on around you hence "slowing down time", and vice versa, but the essence of time says that you cannot slow and speed it up. Am I just being to logical? =\

Time is only relative to your reference frame & the reference frames can change, so the speed of time can change.

You cannot define time in a totally inert, unchanging frame.

Theoretically, in the grand scheme of things, linking time to a truly inert frame, it does not change... but that frame does not and will not exist.

I suppose you're right - but you still can't travel back/forwards in time. That one will still continue to bother me.

That's right... travel = fail

But, if you know the position and velocity of every molecule within the universe then you can predict the future (because you would be able to predict every collision & interaction)... but due to the observer effect, the act of viewing the future would alter the outcome.

I get the idea of expanding and narrowing grids but how would that be accomplished. And also i do not think the spaceship will actually travel that fast, it will act more as a teleportation device since it travels so fast that measuring time is useless.

The way to cheat gravity and speed is to reduce the drag of air. If there was a system that propels air particles away from the spaceship/airplane, it would continue to build speed infinitely because there would be no drag so the only slowdown would be the limit of the engine. I think U.F.O's work on this principle.

The observer effect is probably not real though (further experimentation is needed before it can be conclusively dismissed, I think) - the notion seems to primarily be a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, created through a further misunderstanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM - but even if one could know the position and momentum of every particle in the universe, the Uncertainty Principle prevents one from knowing either piece of information accurately enough to predict the future with certainty (no pun intended!). That fuzziness would increase with each successive step in the predictive modelling.

No, the limit would be the relativistic effects on the craft's mass. Besides, simple Newtonian mechanics will show you that 'repelling' anything off the craft will still result in it experiencing a resistive force. The most one can achieve is to reduce the problem to the lowest possible minimum (although in space, of course, it's not a problem to be really concerned about).

Yes in space you would not have that problem but let's say in our atmosphere where there is a lot of air. And who knows maybe one day we will invent something that will repel and not cause a slowdown? Assuming some U.F.O sightings were real, or made in area 51, how would they be able to achieve such results of moving left to right in split seconds and whatnot?

To repel something and not experience any kind of reaction force would break the conservation of momentum. Given that this notion has been 100% consistent in all physics experiments around the world and there is no room in any model or theory for it to be broken in such a simple manner, I would go (as would every other physicist I know) as far as to say that it just won't ever happen.

Assuming some U.F.O sightings were real, or made in area 51, how would they be able to achieve such results of moving left to right in split seconds and whatnot? There is no answer to that question. It's like saying, "assuming Neeyik is God, why hasn't he solved all the world's problems?"

You can't prove it since no one has acomplished it so you are only basing your fact by our own facts for our current generation but sure is okay.

Anyway, I believe it can and when I meet you next life I will tell you "I told you so!".. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/tongue1.gif

Uh.... prove it? haha. Do you know what time is?

Sure, it's 10:27am right nowhttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...es/tongue1.gif

Isn't time what separates our dimension from the 3rd dimension?

I have had a theory about time and space travel, an example..

if you look at a star and it takes 75 years for that light to hit your eyes you are basically seeing 75 years into the past........now if you move away from that star at the speed of light in your eyes have you stopped time from your point of view? you are seeing
the same light and it isnt advancing past you. In order for you to go back in time and be in
the past you must travel faster than the speed of light away from a point but fold space in front of you faster than you are traveling away from said point. If that makes any sensehttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/wacko1.gif

If you start talking about light and the observed universe as seen by FTL you get into light-cones and things get weird very fast.

Ya because we don't have the facts. This is a big time matter, just wait a second..maybe 5-6 generations..http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/smile1.gif

If it wasn't because Im so damn lazy and I dont believe in hope too much I would probably graduate to big a scientist of these things..[no]

Oh dear! [rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl][rofl]