I figure he's the one from the future who actually invents the time machine, but it's not working quite right and he keeps bouncing back to the beginning of the thread trying to get out of the loop.Chris Peterson wrote:I'm pretty sure you're just a poorly written computer program. A real person wouldn't keep asking the same question over and over after it had already been answered (many times).
cmon im trying to be serious.rstevenson wrote:I figure he's the one from the future who actually invents the time machine, but it's not working quite right and he keeps bouncing back to the beginning of the thread trying to get out of the loop.Chris Peterson wrote:I'm pretty sure you're just a poorly written computer program. A real person wouldn't keep asking the same question over and over after it had already been answered (many times).
Rob
Really? You asked...outlaw wrote:cmon im trying to be serious.rstevenson wrote:I figure he's the one from the future who actually invents the time machine, but it's not working quite right and he keeps bouncing back to the beginning of the thread trying to get out of the loop.Chris Peterson wrote:I'm pretty sure you're just a poorly written computer program. A real person wouldn't keep asking the same question over and over after it had already been answered (many times).
I,m Hooked on Time travel in every way shape & form.Chris Peterson wrote:The "movie definition" suggests something physically traveling backwards in time, carrying information. No particle does that, virtual or otherwise. But in quantum mechanics it is convenient to consider that particles can travel either forward or backward in time. They need not be virtual- positrons are typically treated as moving backwards in time. This does not violate relativity or causality, however, since no information is transported backwards in time.outlaw wrote:what would be the difference?Aescens wrote:What do you mean by time travel? The movie definition? Or relativistic and quantum effects?
The "known laws" are called that for a reason. Unless you can propose some new, testable law (and in this case, it would need to define what it even means to move backward in time), the question is scientifically meaningless. Under current theory there is no such thing as a "time frame", so you would need to define that, as well.The Code wrote:A : Are not black Holes stuck in a time frame that move differently to ours, yet its effect over reaches all of Time . Can Those things been devoured, be considered leaping backwards ? After all they Maybe break all the known laws.
(Time Frame) A quantifiable Segment of time that can be measured To a degree where different segments measure time in different aspects according to how close we get to the event horizon. If time changes at all, (which they say it does) How extreme does this go, past the event horizon ? If your virtual particle is headed that way it could be deemed as going back in time ? If its ten years for us and only 5 years at the event horizon, Then maybe past that, The theoretical (NOW) For a black hole is 6 billion years ago. That's if the whole of space time was created at the BB. The Start and The End of time.Chris Peterson wrote:The "known laws" are called that for a reason. Unless you can propose some new, testable law (and in this case, it would need to define what it even means to move backward in time), the question is scientifically meaningless. Under current theory there is no such thing as a "time frame", so you would need to define that, as well.The Code wrote:A : Are not black Holes stuck in a time frame that move differently to ours, yet its effect over reaches all of Time . Can Those things been devoured, be considered leaping backwards ? After all they Maybe break all the known laws.
When you say something breaks known laws, what you are really saying is that it is operating in a realm where known laws don't apply. You can't break a natural law. There are two ways that you can reasonably make this proposition: by looking at where theory breaks down (which is how people try to understand what might be going on inside a black hole), or by making an actual observation of something that can't be explained by known laws (I don't know of any example of this related to black holes).
Sorry, that doesn't make much sense to me. In all likelihood, this is a concept that would need to be defined symbolically.The Code wrote:(Time Frame) A quantifiable Segment of time that can be measured To a degree where different segments measure time in different aspects according to how close we get to the event horizon.
It doesn't. All that changes is the relative measurement of time between non-inertial frames.If time changes at all, (which they say it does)
Our existing theories are not valid past the event horizon, so the question cannot be answered scientifically.How extreme does this go, past the event horizon ?
Many particles, virtual or otherwise, can be treated as traveling backwards in time. There is nothing mysterious about this. It comes down to how time is treated in the mathematics describing the theory.If your virtual particle is headed that way it could be deemed as going back in time ?
Again, you can't break a natural law. If our theory is incorrect, we may find cases where it doesn't apply, or in extreme examples, completely replace an old theory with a new one. But no natural law can be broken, or it wouldn't be a law.(Breaks Laws) By this i mean GR-SR.
We have no observations that contradict either GR or SR. There are a large number of independent observations that support their validity. It is certainly possible- even likely-that GR is an incomplete theory.It been known to not be explained by them or any understanding of the extreme things we see and can not be explained by using these laws.