taog

Can you post some links that state these facts? I've done a lot of research on astrophysics, and consider myself to have a more than average knowledge base on such subjects. I have never heard any scientifical proof relating to anything similar to this, other than sci-fi books.

No offence to you, but it sounds like you watched too much Back to the Future when you were a kid.



I just wanted to state one thing that has already been stated, which proves, more than anything I could say, that this guy is a fake.

WHY DOESN'T HE GIVE US ANY DATES OR ACUTAL FACTS ABOUT EVENTS THAT ARE ABOUT TO HAPPEN?

If he's from the future, wouldn't he know that Bush was going to win? Why didn't he say flat out that the president of the united states is going to be george bush in 2004 after the election? Why doesn't he make bets on sports and things like that?

I knew that Bush was going to win!

I didn't read too far into his predictions, because I have seen it all before on those 'psychic' sites, where others have made generalizations and 'predictions', which 'come true' becaue they are so general that something close to it must happen around the time (usually 1 year) that they say it's going to happen.

Also, I went to the site and couldn't handle it. I find it quite offencive to my eyes.

If he's such a great man, and a time traveller, who would obviously know how to make a lot of money, and who would probably be rich from being able to actually go back in time and bet on things, or simply because he's a genius who works for a multi-billion dollar company, in his time, why does he have to have links to tripod? Why are there advertisments on his page?

That page is horrible. I would think that someone from the future would be able to afford to make a better site.

Also, he said "Time travel is not a secret in 2036 and I expect it will become more common."

If time travel is going to become more common, wouldn't we know about it by now? What would stop it from being more common if you are able to go back in time? Time wouldn't be a factor anymore, so saying that it will 'become' more common is irrelevant.

This whole site is a joke, and it's only entertaining because of that fact.

I'll give you some physics about time travel.


There are 3 possible ways that you could possibaly travel back through time.

1) Travel at a speed faster than the speed of light.

2) Pray that wormholes exist (wormholes could exist in the overlapping of gravitational fields of two very very very massive objects, like supermassive black holes. Since gravity bends space-time, it's possible that one could be sent to a new time and space after passing through this field, since they will overlap and change the value of space-time.)

3) Fall into a black hole.


Here are some reasons why you wouldn't be able to travel through time using these three possible ways.

1) No object with a mass can travel the speed of light, let alone exceed it. Your mass increases as you travel faster, and as you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity. E = mc^2 is what proves this. m, which is mass, changes as you approach the speed of light. To get m, you have to use a formula that looks like this.

m(v) = m(0) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

If you look at this and figure it out, if your velicoty (v) is the speed of light (c), you end up getting something equal to c/c, which is 1.

Now, you take 1-1, which equals 0.

Try to take the square root of 0, then try to divide by 0. Possible? Nope!

If you get close to c, you will notice that the denominator gets closer and closer to 0. If you divide something by a number that is very close to 0, you get a very large number. This proves that, as you increase speed, close to the speed of light, your mass increases and approaches infinity, but never reaches it, because it's impossible to get there, due to the equation, or, if our math skills just aren't good enough to figure out an equation with a denominator of 0, you will reach a mass of infinity, which is impossible, and due to E=mc^2, the energy it takes you to get there would be infinity(c^2). In other words, you would have an infinite mass, and it would take an infinite amount of energy to get there.


2) wormholes

Even if wormholes do exist, which I think they don't, how are we going to find one? We would have to use number 1 to get us to a binary orbiting system, since it would be insanely far away. The only place that supermassive blackholes exist is at the centre of galaxies, as far as I know. To have two orbiting eachother is a very rare and improbable occurrence. People would have to have travelled for more than 59 years to get to these rare celestial miracles. It would be more probable to have visited aliens, and more feasible.

Another problem is, you would get shot to a random space and time. It would be impossible to tell what part and time of the universe you would end up in.


3) Same as above, to get to a black hole, you would have to use case 1, since they are many many light years away from us. The closest would probaby be the one at the centre of our galaxy, which is further than anyone can comprehend. It would take us millions of years to even get there.

Just to give a little example of how far it is. It's so far away that we, as in our solar system and star, do not feel the effects of the insane amount of gravitational pull that the supermassive black hole has at the centre of our galaxy.

If you were to come close to a black hole, you would not survive. Due to the level of acceleration you would experience, whatever part of you that was going in first would be stretched out across a great distance, compared to your trailing end. You would be stretched to death.



I also noticed someone talking about moving things faster than the speed of light.

Yes, it has happened, but they moved a photon faster than the speed of light. Photons do not have a mass. When it's said that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, it's referring to objects with a mass.



I also wanted to point out this post.



Well stated. I was going to touch on the same thing, but figured I would let you do the job for me, and since you already posted it, which woul dhave been my strongest argument, I thought I would continue to give you the credit.

I wanted to go a little further.

Someone on here posted that they have been into researching time travel and everything since a very young age. They said they have degrees in mathematics and such. Now, props to that, but I would just like you to explain a few things for me.

I understand your points about gravity and magnetic fields being a factor in such cases, but, what about the singularity that this would produce? You would need to have a supermassive black hole to bend light like that, which is what the above poster pretty much stated.

And, if you read, in this post, about wormholes, that is the only way i can see time travel being possible by using gravity as the means. The bending of space-time through gravitational fields doesn't change your time. It changes the rate of space-time. It's the overlapping of two gravitationally bend space-times that change the value of space-time. As far as I know, and believe, at the moment, this is the only way to actually change that value. If you can show me otherwise, I would be greatful.

I just can't see how simply using one gravitational source can change your space-time, rather than just change the rate of space-time, unless you get into singularities, which would rip you apart, because you would be dealing with black holes.


Anyway, enough of my rant. It's fake, and you should be able to agree after this post.