Time travel has always fascinated me, but for the life of me,

Actually time is longer for the loser in reference to the amount of time from start to finish

Also time only exist when you are paying attention

>>17968659
Ok, time didn't pass slower, he just took more of it. While the winner spent that time celebrating. Or am I missing something?

/sci/ would be a much better place to ask this, no one here is going to know what the hell they're talking about

File: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU STARIN AT.png (310KB, 457x528px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 457x528px

>Travel back in time to a week ago to tell myself not to buy that $20 pizza that'll give me the shits.
>Stuck in the vacuum of space because the earth won't be there for another week.

Unless we're talking Steins;Gate type time travel.

>>17968644
mass warps spacetime, the less or more mass you have will change the speed of time slightly, something moving at or near the speed of light isn't being constrained by much mass so spacetime finds it hard to catch up.

look into time dilation for some easy thought experiments.

>>17968728
Seems like a bit of psychic projection. Like tossing a fishing line and reeling it back.

Anyway, time travel to the past is nigh impossible, just makes 0 sense. About as close to absolute 0 probability as possible.

Time travel to the future is doable obviously, just not by any current means. There are no black holes laying around. Not to mention the radiation and heat would kill you.

>>17968728
>Stuck in the vacuum of space because the earth won't be there for another week

This is the type of erroneous thinking that relativity is needed for. Hopefully if someone DOES engineer a time machine, they are smart enough to understand reference frames.

>>17968754
>time travel to the past is nigh impossible, just makes 0 sense
look into closed timelike curves and retrocausal worldlines in general. it's very possible that microscopic particles will be able to use causal time travel in the future, macroscopic is another issue though.

>>17968710
shut the fuck up, not everyone here is an ignorant sack of ghost slime

So, OP, stop thinking of time as something linear, rigid and absolute. Time is more fluid than you might think. A down to earth example would be, in Einstein's words “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.”

Now, picture yourself in a train, and someone throws an arrow at the same speed the train is travelling, and you see it in your window. It would seem like it isnt moving right?
The two velocity vectors would be the same, and therefore you wouldnt be able to tell if its moving.

Now, remember I said time wasnt absolute? Well, neither is space. Think about gravity, the more massive something is, the more it exerts an atractive force on you (actually both you and the think feel that force). That, in reality is space distorting, and the more massive something is, the more it distorts space.
And something analogue happens with time and speed, the faster something goes, the more it distorts time.

Hope I made myself clear, I could be more explicit and precise but I think you wouldnt understand me.

I really loved how Steins;Gate handled this, same with Back to the future

>>17968757
and what would you reference it to? The Sun?
the center of the Galaxy?
the center of the Universe (if it even exists)?

time travel into the future is a little bit more plausible, but we'd have to solve the dilemma of wether the universe is deterministic or not, Laplace's demon.
Time travel backwards is way more complicated.

I'll bite.

It basically comes down to this: In a vacuum, we always measure the speed of light the same, no matter how we're moving. That means that if a light source is moving toward you, you would see light moving at the same speed as the light from a light source that's moving away from you. This is a property that is unique to light. That is, if you were measuring the speed of a bullet fired in your direction, you would measure a higher speed from a gun that was moving toward you than one that was moving away, because the speed of the bullet and the speed of the gun add up to give the speed that we would measure. The only way that you can have light's speed be the same no matter if the light source is moving toward or away from you is if time changes depending on your speed, with time not passing at all for something moving at the speed of light, which is also why nothing can go faster.

>>17968781
The EARTH, fool. Make the Earth your central frame of reference and you will NEVER have to worry about the Earth "not being there" for your time traveling.

>>17968762
I'm too lazy to Wikipedia it but would you call the cosmology, your theory or more philosophical?

>>17968764
When you say that the faster something goes it distorts time, you mean the speed and density distort time, yes? I'm also very drowsy go so bear with my allergy riddled mind

>>17968710

While /sci/ would be the more appropriate board, you'd be amazed how many really smart people with science backgrounds fuck around with the occult and the paranormal in their spare time.

>>17968795
I just like scary stories and stuff, I read Stephen King so I think tarot cards look cool

Everything else on this boards legitimately insane tho

Hence why an astronomy afficianado realms /X/

>>17968781
cont.
To travel backwards in time, youd have to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that is, the enthropy of a closed system (in this case, the universe), can only increase.
Enthropy is the measure of disorder in a system, or, more precisely, the ammount of different configurations a system can be.
Say you have a glass with frozen water in it, and you drop it and it breaks. Its enthropy has increased because its particles are no longer in a fixed place, some of the ice has melted and the glass is no longer a glass. Could you put the shards back in the same order as they were before so as to make the glass be wat it was and put all the water in the same thermodynamical and mechanical state as they were before?
Thats the biggest problem with thime travel to the past, IMHO

>>17968788
If you want to think about it that way, then yes, You said in the op that two runners in a track dont distort time, actually, they do, they just do it so little that it isnt perceptible to our feeble minds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tflf05x-WVI

>>17968805
>Could you put the shards back in the same order as they were before so as to make the glass be wat it was and put all the water in the same thermodynamical and mechanical state as they were before?

Yes. You absolutely can. But it takes energy. More specifically it takes energy coming from outside the closed system of ice/glass/etc.

Reversing entropy locally is very easy. It's reversing entropy in the whole system (this being the universe as we know it) that is impossible.

My biggest problem with time travel is that there isn't any place to travel to. "Past" "present" and "future" are distinguishable due to the different arrangement of particles in the universe. The arrangement of the past doesn't "stay" any more than the arrangement of the future exist some place. The common metaphor of frames from a movie is erroneous. The previous frames no longer exist, the future frames aren't there. Time is more like a piece of silly putty slowly changing. To go back to a "past" you HAVE to change the "present" shape. You can't bring a bit of the "present" back to the "past," for that would be a new, "future" shape.

In other words, in order to "travel to the past" a person would have to rearrange every single particle in the universe to a previous configuration. This would deny any ability to remain "outside" of time as YOUR particles would need to rearrange as well. You wouldn't be "traveling" anywhere, you would be resetting the entire system of the universe.

File: image.jpg (25KB, 277x320px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 277x320px

>>17968754
Not trying to start an argument, but how would you prove you're really in the future and not some alternate dimension? The future has endless many variables and I really don't think it can be seen as something that is set in stone so then how would you be able to say you're really in the future and not a future?
God said that with him, all things were possible and if there's no more beautiful thing to believe in than that, then I don't know what truly motivates all these scientists - they obviously want to accomplish what was at one point impossible because it only brings us closer to divine, little by little.

We don't know "sense". That's like saying we know everything exists and can exist. We're trying to.

Nothing should ever be dismissed as impossible given how little time we've had in existence and all the great things we've created thus far.
Answers only bring more questions and love only creates out of love.
If anything, it's more like there's a 100% probability that it will happen, perhaps not in this lifetime at all, maybe for some, maybe for no one. Anything's possible.

File: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.png (132KB, 409x284px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 409x284px

>>17968788
>I'm too lazy to Wikipedia it but would you call the cosmology, your theory or more philosophical?
think of it like a ring in spacetime, like the space folded between an entry and exit point of an einstein-rosen bridge (wormhole). most people think, 'oh hey, I can just go through this wormhole and appear in the future'. unfortunately there are many doubts about this, though it is generally accepted as feasible. but this is besides the point as it is time travel forward which is theoretically simple in lots of ways.

as for backwards timetravel, think of a particle that gets stuck in the fold inside of a wormhole. it's worldline can be strictly placed on the inside of this spacefold, and causally create itself to repeat the cycle infinitely. there's lots of complex things sorrounding this, but there have been retrocausal experiments that prove this is very possible. unfortunately it's in very strict circumstance, and macro matter won't be able to make the same jumps unless we use exotic matter or negate mass entirely. one proposed solution is near light speed travel, but that is wayyy far off.

this probably made no sense as I'm not a physicist

>>17968833
youre right, I mixed up my example of the glass (which ofc is not a clfosed system) with the universe (which is? maybe?)

>>17968644

A good analogy is the putting a triangle over a globe. In a small area, it matches the normal euclidean theorems. Keep moving the points outward and the "straight" lines curve and finally the three vertices collapse to a zero point on the other side of the globe, yet the area of the triangle becomes the area of the entire sphere.

Just think of the triangle as normal Newtonian Physics and the earth as the curved universe.

>>17969102

I'm not really good at explaining physics, so here's a better, more qualified explanation on curvature.
http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-8/curved-space/

Dis shite is 2 simple even for an uneducated niggah like meh. It called time dilation nigga, space and time are connected like mah dong to some fine bootay. Time is always relevant to teh observer. So if you put two niggas to run, one is a fatass neckbeard much like yourself, while the othar brothar is a fine alpha fcker like me, time passes slower to a third observer but not for me. Lesson learned: the faster a nigga, the less time he serves in prison, got it homeboy? Now beat your white ass outta my hood.

>>17968644
It's like the Doppler effect on light waves.

>>17969524
Imagine you're on a planet far away from earth with a telescope looking back at the dinosaurs. If you could travel from that planet to earth at a speed so you arrive tomorrow and watch through the telescope and discern what's going on you'd see a speedied up history through time to the present. In theory if you traveled this speed around to arrive at the same point the same effect of time dilation would occur.

>>17968833
>in order to "travel to the past" a person would have to rearrange every single particle in the universe to a previous configuration

Is that because the past doesn't exist in the universe itself, you would need to recreate it? What if multiple/infinite universes existed and you could travel to them, you could literally go to any moment anywhere. It just wouldn't be the universe you started in.

>>17969585
You cant go to the past because of entropy. In other words "things will never be the same again". If you could reverse entropy then yes, but that is impossible (only for tzeentch maybe). As for multiple universes, well.... lol.

>>17969585
Think of the classic timeline metaphor. An infinite series of points with a single moment - the present - moving along it. With this imagery, past present and future are all discrete - you can point to the separate places on the timeline. It makes the idea of traveling along a line plausible, and potentially jumping from one spot to another.

Instead, consider a metaphor of Scrabble tiles spelling out a word. For simplicity, let's use the word "dormitory." We can rearrange these tiles to spell the phrase "dirty room." Now let's imagine the arrangement "room" is sentient and wants to travel back to when the universe was "dormitory." Well we can revert the arrangement of the letters, but in order for "room" to stay discreet, we can no longer spell the word "dormitory." You can't take one part of the arrangement and have it travel around the rest. They aren't discreet.

Multiverse interpretations bypass this almost entirely, however. The issue there is considerations on what happens when energy from one system is removed and forcibly transplanted in the other. Or if that's possible.

>>17970017
Do people really see timelines as different existences? Fuckers, it's just data. It can only be calculated and predicted, maybe copied if you're a technological god.

>>17969559
This is nonsense.

>>17969585
>>17970017
>>17970089
Timelines can be looked at as different quantum states, each in their own universes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

It makes causal time travel moot as you'd literally be leaving your current state and travelling to a re-arranged universe of a previous state, but it is technically 'time travel into the past'.

On the subject of time, isn't it possible to "see" the future if you knew the speed and direction every atom was traveling?
I believe I learned in chemistry that we can figure the direction an atom is moving, or how fast it is moving, but never both at once. Wouldn't knowing those two things (and a whole lot of calculations) be able to predict future reactions?

>>17970646
Universes like that are far away, not in the betweens of ours. They might not even exist, actually, because the universe might only be infinite in space, while not in matter.

>>17970747
Possible to calculate the future and the past if you have data on every atom ever, but we don't have the technology. It's possible to manipulate everything as well.

>>17969421
One Smart Mfuka>>17970646

When you think about it, if you can only travel to the exact point n the universe you traveled from, the earth rotates around the sun, the galaxy rotates. Most time travel has it so the don't move in space and that when they travel through time they are in the same general area.

There is just no ground rules for these things, even if earth is your reference, it rotates on it's axis, and rotates around the sun, to be safe on your time travel you have to approximate a time where you'd be in the same area.

I took a time travel course with a metaphysicist

>>17970816
There's always the possibility of calculating worldlines in reference to the earth's position though.

>>17968805
You are slightly mistaken, you can fix the glass, mathematically it is possible.

>>17968833
You are correct

Really the buffet problem is that time travel essentially makes matter from nothing, the atoms that make you up already exist before you travel through time, you just doubled your mass if you traveled without a machine traveling with you. That is what is impossible

>>17970826
True but this is often the most overlooked fact about time travel. You could theoretically travel across the universe using time travel, it is just you'd likely end up in empty space.

Does time travel remove you from the preexisting laws of reality? Some believe it does, some believe things like gravity will keep you anchored to Earth. But it is all speculative

File: 1453003084225.png (43KB, 706x669px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 706x669px

>>17969421
Best post I've read in a while.

>>17970552
Actually he is kinda right.
It would be te same thing that happens when we see the light of a star in the night, the star isn't really there because it moved thousands of years ago and its light took thousands of years to reach the earth.

>>17969421
Underrated post.

>>17968764
>I could be more explicit and precise but I think you wouldnt understand me.
>im too smart for you suckers yet i also hang here among the tulparaping rp shitlist (im just a sore loser in reality but you dont have to rub that in)

>>17970747
>isn't it possible to "see" the future if you knew the speed and direction every atom was traveling?

For a few brief interactions after the initial known state, yes. However Chaos Theory indicates that even with perfect knowledge, the complexity of interaction becomes too great to predict. Like chess - 32 pieces, 64 squares, yet only 10 moves into the game and there are over 4 billion possible configurations. Five more turns and it becomes impossible to predict despite knowing everything about the game at the start.

>>17968749
Actually, the faster you travel the more mass you have. Since mass or gravity slows space-time time moves slower for the object of greater mass.

Example, take a scale and weigh yourself note the weight. Now jump and land on the scale and note the weight. It will way more due to the acceleration of your body.

>>17970816
>>17970845
sigh...

>if you can only travel to the exact point n the universe you traveled from

There is no absolute frame of reference for position in the universe. ANY POINT can be considered the exact, unmoving center of the universe.

>the earth rotates around the sun, the galaxy rotates

OR program your machine to calculate astral positions with Earth as your central reference frame. NOW the sun rotates around the Earth, the galaxy, the cluster, the universe - EVERYTHING is now rotating around an unmoving Earth at the center of the universe.

Yes, the calculations would be horribly complex and useless for stellar navigation - but that isn't what you are attempting. We're attempting to time travel without moving from our spot on Earth.

>>17971007
True, but as I suggested, the process of stellar navigation could be possible with what I would still call "time travel". The calculations are far too impractical for any physicist to focus on because the technology to time travel isn't there. And when it is there it may once again be overlooked.

It would be practical to keep the current model in place for exploration of the universe. But it is all completely conceptual, as really only metaphysicists work on these theories at this point

>>17968833
Time reversal is not the same as time traversal.

>>17968892
The glass itself is a closed system. The universe is and is not a closed system depending on the method of analysis you use. It could be spatially infinite and we just have no way to measure that.

Thermodynamic systems *tend toward* increased entropy. It's not a constant degradation with no possibility of containing increased texture in any future state.

>>17970845
>Does time travel remove you from the preexisting laws of reality?
Yes. This is why we don't see time travelers: Because the universe itself has changed shape in the future. When they try to travel back to what they think is the present moment, they end up creating a pocket dimension that shares primitive resemblance to this moment. If they were to actually get all the variables right and interfere with the wavefunction that composes this moment in universal time, we could see the effects directly on a macroscopic scale. To go anywhere in the multiverse, you need to be able to navigate physics itself. Quantum information management is a hard problem, and I have yet to see another inventor tackle the matter as of yet.

>>17971686
>we could see the effects directly on a macroscopic scale
this desu. causal time travel is impossible otherwise we would have proof of it's existence, or even then, that one nullifying law says that nobody would be here to experience time if causal time travel existed because of infinite application.

>>17970867
It is still there. It's just so far away that even traveling 20 lightyears won't change its position in our sky all that much. Even if it travels in a path perpendicular to the axis we observe it on.
>>17970990
And that's just one example of a macroscopic system that the universe is capable of containing. Now imagine all the chess games being played at this exact moment everywhere in the mote of dust we call the Earth.
>>17971007
>the calculations would be horribly complex
It turns out it's not. The centrifugal force you feel when you spin your body in a circle is exactly equivalent to the tidal gravitational force that would exist if the entire universe were spinning around you, with you at the center.

>>17971686
This is all your subjective belief, there are no studies at all that indicate time travel makes you immune to the laws of reality. It starts to become philosophical, that if someone has traveled through time, they must have always traveled through time. Paradoxes are avoidable if there are certain circumstances in place depending on the specific type of paradox. If someone successfully traveled through time we would have never known because they would have always had done so.

Also I'm positive you're role playing, as you uses the phrase "another inventor" yet there are no inventors of these machines

>>17971716
What makes it complex is applying it to every rotating thing in the universe to make your position stationary

>>17968644
>why the hell time would pass slower if you're traveling at the speed of light?
The simple answer is that it doesn't. You still see light moving at light speed, you still have eyes and ears and a nose and mouth. Nothing about your local body of physics has changed. If you're in a galactic bullet train traveling at sub-light/relativistic speeds, all the physics on the train, all the blood in your veins, everything will flow exactly as it normally does here on Earth. (Assuming you're also accelerating at 1G.)

"Time" are measured by your personal physics is the same no matter where you are in the universe.

Now, to say time itself passes slower for you and the train might not be accurate. What you'll see as an observer on the train is a universe that is gradually speeding up. The closer you get to a black hole, the faster you accelerate, the more you compress your person rate of time, the faster the universe will appear to go. You might look out your cabin window and *feel* that time is going faster _because_ you consciously know that the universe around you is experiencing time at an accelerated pace IN COMPARISON TO your local normal-time.

HOWEVER, to *the rest of the universe*, they see the exact opposite: You, in your cabin, the faster you get to light speed, will appear to slow down and almost stop. If you in your cabin see the universe move 1000 years forward in your local 10 minutes, there will be four generations (with on generation being 25 years) every time you see the minute hand advance one unit. It's not that one observer will stand there for 1000 years, feeling 1000 years worth of causal time, and then at the end of those 1000 years say, "Well, he only advanced ten minutes." What will be seen instead is, every 10 years, people will be able to look back at you and measure that your time has slowed/compressed such that you only moved forward in your own local physical time-space by six seconds. Another ten years and we'll say 12 seconds. So on.

>>17971753
>"Time" as measured by your personal physics
It is only in the version of "time" as measured by the rest of the universe looking at the rate at which physical processed occur in your cabin that we can can say your local "time" is slower than ours. In your reference frame, in your local physics, in your cabin on that train, time is just as consistent as it's always been.

Evolution didn't prepare us for watching the universe pass by at an accelerated rate, so you most likely would feel time going faster. Note that your cognitive perception of time is not the same as the mechanistic causal processes of your body and the cabin. We can have no way to sense the flow of mechanistic time other than looking out at other sections of time and creating a *relativistic reference frame.* Time is still time, it just more slower for your body as compared to the rest of the universe that does not compose your body.

>>17971717
>there are no studies at all that indicate time travel makes you immune to the laws of reality
Are you from the future? Are there studies in the future about the effects of time travel? Yes? Then how did you get back to this moment? No? Well then what could you possible pose as evidence to me other than phenomenological models that have all failed to predict the characteristics of potential time travel?

There are no inventors of these machines because I have incredible planning capacities. Only a fool would jump blindly into the implementation of a device that would spread existential fear across the planet and on into the future for centuries or millennia to come.

>>17971773
The future doesn't exist yet, because of all the possible things that need to take place in order for the potential future evidence we are discussing to come into existence has an incredibly low probability. If you ascribe to the belief in free will then you would believe that this evidence might never been seen by you because of your choices. But if all time is predetermined and there is only the illusion of free will, then yes, this conversation could result in both of us finding out about a study that posits that time travel removes you from the laws of reality.

And clearly you're a role playing faggot not here to have an actual conversation on the reality that would be time travel or the philosophical issues that cannot explain it.

>>17969421
God tier post

File: helio vs geo centric orbits.jpg (267KB, 1220x601px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1220x601px

>>17971716
Making the most massive thing in a model the center of the inertial frame of reference simplifies the model. Pic very related - both models accurately describe the motion of the solar system, but the one with the sun as the center is MUCH simpler and intuitive to use.

Every calculation would require additional steps that in essence perform the math, then adjust it so that Earth's velocity remains at zero.

You should have learned this in high school physics, OP.

>>17972864
True, it isn't exactly high concept

>>17968644
Wiki time diliation.

File: sketch-1469858875461.png (149KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1280x720px

Best way to kinda visualize it.

Both mech. And bio. Clocks work like this. Alternating whatevers that hot sensors or some shit back and forth at the speed of light or something. If you go at the sol then the thingy(dot) can't make any progress forwards. You can slow down but the dot will make little progress. Thank me later

>>17973153
I think you need a bit more explanation here

File: Doc_1955.jpg (22KB, 352x364px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 352x364px

>>17968644
>I still haven't been able to understand t eh theory of relativity.
Don't bother. It's pointless when it comes to proper time travel, and is nothing but a red herring.

>>17975110
Explain yourself, because it is the only way time travel can make sense. To me it seems like the issues with time travel reside in the logical paradoxes surrounding it. Or are you role playing some more?

File: doctor what.jpg (31KB, 500x377px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x377px

>>17975187
>it is the only way time travel can make sense
1. Going close to the speed of light takes you forward in time, but faster. No way back.
2. Breaking the light barrier may send you back, but it'll wreck you physically because matter isn't supposed to do that.
3. Gonna have to travel a long distance just to do it (or circle around something) and it's inconvenient as fuck if you just wanna go check out the Revolutionary War or some shit.

It seems to me that fiction may hold better answers, we just need to figure out the proper means to do it. Better than some FTL timeship, we'd have to go for a reality-warping mechanism that can:
A) Serve as a gate between two points, obviously requiring the gate to be at the earlier point.
B) Maintain its relative position to the Earth in spite of its change in time, like Wells' Time Machine, or the DeLorean, which basically requires gravity to be constant, or
C) A spacetimeship capable of both withstanding the void of space and calculating its position in time and space relative to celestial objects, like the TARDIS, but otherwise bypassing the whole sluggish distance thing.

Then again, maybe I'm not so familiar with relativity either, because I think wormholes are covered there.

Really I'm just sick of people talking about lightspeed like it'll do any good. It's like trying to travel to Mars or the 19th century on a schooner.

File: timeline-300x248.jpg (12KB, 300x248px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x248px

>>17975327
Er... I should've finished reading, sorry.
>>17975187
I'm not roleplaying - if I had a time machine, I sure as hell wouldn't be here, unless I had some good pics or vids to share. I just have a fascination with the subject.

There are issues with paradoxes, for sure, but I think that depending on the model you work from, most of them are canceled out pretty nicely.

It seems to me that if time is a closed loop, then things do get a bit paradoxical, first and foremost being the fact that you are an anomaly. The atoms that make up your body should be elsewhere, either as yourself or as something else, in the time you get there. And nothing should be in two places at once. Furthermore, you are restricted in your actions to do only that which brings about the future.

Split timelines, though, would have no such issue. You are an anomaly, yes, but your past is no longer their future, merely a similarity between them. Which means getting home is going to be difficult, for sure.

But I think beyond the paradoxes are further difficulties, should you reach a time period. Things like language, cultural dissonance, or (even more dangerous) disease.

Still... I think there's still a concern with the mechanism. It always feels like people are thinking too small when they try to come up with a time machine. Limiting themselves too much. If we want something that can properly fast forward or rewind time itself, we need something a little better than the Enterprise making a slingshot around the sun.

>>17975327
Most time travel fiction ascribed to the physics or metaphysics about time travel, when you really think about the theory and time travel, it is really just all a thought experiment.

>>17975357
I agree with the paradoxes, they can be worked around, but it becomes increasingly more and more complicated as you apply all the things that have to and can't be done

>>17975187
The many worlds interpretation is correct. Paradox would not occur, all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each of which represent their own "universe"

>>17975506
Then it isn't time travel, it is universe hoping. The many worlds theory does explain some paradoxes though, like traveling back in time to kill your infant self could only work in a universe with resurrection capabilities.

Do you realy think it would work out on the hands of greedy filthy humans?

>>17968644
A good way to imagine relativity is to imagine two dudes. One standing still (P1) and one (P2) at 50% of c (speed of light). The one moving at c/2 has two mirrors with a light travelling between the two. When P1 looks at the light its zigzagging with an trail of internal angle 45° and P2 just sees a flat like bouncing up and down

>>17968644
Well, to star you have understand that "real" by human standards is perception.

Secondly perception of self is constant.

Therefore when travelling at or very near lightspeed you still perceive yourself as normal, ie time doesn't slow or speed, but the things around you do change.

It's not broken time works outside or normal perception of time.

>>17968644
>>17977175
Samefag here. 2nd law of thermodynamics also helps explain why timetravel backward ISNT possible. Entropy (chaos in a system) cannot decrease,it must increase or temaon constant and going back in time would be decreasong entropy. Maxwells demon can help explain this.

>>17977046
It depends on how the greed of humanity is channelled. Qlippothic demons force them to channel the negatives. Sephirothic angels banish the demons and lift humanity up ala thought elevator.

>>17977183
Speaking as a beyond divine entity, entropy is a load of horseshit fed to people to ensure axiomatic synchronization

>>17968833
This idea of time is actually erroneous. here, watch this my friend. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO_Q_f1WgQI

>>17977188
Nice rp fag