Runescape Bits & Bytes :: View topic - Did someone time travel?

Microsoft ... no longer exist

Hey if wikipedia has it, its gotta be true. Gonna start building my bomb shelter for 2015.

When asked about the mechanisms of the time traveling, Titor replied that he was no engineer. When asked to provide a better picture of his time machine he replied that he wasn't a photographer.

Many people that go into space for a long period of time, come down with less signes of aging as the people on earth of the same age. So i suppose thats kind of timetravel?

Scientists put atomic clocks on space rockets to see if relativity was true, and found there is some empirical proof for it. They put one atomic clock on the ground, one on the rocket, set to exactly the same time, then launched the rocket. Because it was travelling so fast, time inside the clock slowed down, only by a bit, but when they came back down to earth, the clock in the rocket was 6 seconds behind the clock on earth.

MasterOfTheVortex wrote:

Didn't they put one atomic clock on the ground and one on a tower and left it for a week and the clock on the tower was slightly slower than the one on the ground?

Also, Scientists have been able to get molecules CLOSE to the speed of light, but it impossible to reach an infinite mass, therefore impossible to reach the speed of light as anything but a photon or any other subatomic particle with a mass, or even get faster. As far as scientists are away, no particles can travel faster then the speed of light. When you take a look at the forumla for time dialation (which does work, its been proven, given by Albert Einstien) and u put in a speed faster then the speed of light, here is your result (the time dialation effect): here is the work for exactly C and C+1:

For exactly C
(1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-(299,792,458^2/299,792,458^2))) =
(1/sqrt(1-1)) = (1/sqrt(0)) = 1/0 = no real answer (divide by zero)

For C+1
(1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-(299,792,459^2/299,792,458^2))) =
(1/sqrt(1-1.000000006713)) = (1/sqrt(-6.67`3*10^(-9))) = no real answer (negative radical)[/u]

So, as you can see here, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to travel more then the speed of light due to the fact that the mass contraction of any object travelling a speed is Mf= Mi*(t1) where t1 is the time dialation calculation, so you can see that Mf = M*t1, but, since t1 is a non-real answer, it would then create a non-real answer, making it an impossible mass

1) You guys are too clever.

Author:	Rapidash [ October 28th, 2006, 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Did someone time travel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor Discuss. I think he's a hoax since we're not in a civil war now, but some call the war on terror the war he was talking about. o.O

Author:	Adbot [ October 28th, 2006, 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Register and login to get these in-post ads to disappear

Author:	CreepyPirate [ October 28th, 2006, 2:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Internet nerds and their silly storys. Doubt very much it's true, kinda be cool if it was..although we've got nothing but doom and gloom ahead according to that guy. Anyone can predict world war 3 happening, hell i've even said it a few times..the worlds a messed up place right now.

Author:	MattVortex [ October 28th, 2006, 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Microsoft ... no longer exist Yay! I seriously doubt he time travelled, i think maybe its just some dork who studies world affairs and makes predictions from them. Anyone can guess there are going to be problems with Israel and the middle east.

Author:	The Haysta [ October 28th, 2006, 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:
Well that killed 12 minutes. A few predictions have already been proved false, he is probably doing this for kicks.

Runescape Bits & Bytes https://www.rsbandb.com/forums/

Did someone time travel? https://www.rsbandb.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=40718	Page 1 of 2

Author:	†rivium-x [ October 28th, 2006, 3:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Many people that go into space for a long period of time, come down with less signes of aging as the people on earth of the same age. So i suppose thats kind of timetravel?

Author:	Kyle [ October 28th, 2006, 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Hey if wikipedia has it, its gotta be true. Gonna start building my bomb shelter for 2015.

Author:	Adbot [ October 28th, 2006, 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Register and login to get these in-post ads to disappear

Author:	Bogrollbloke [ October 28th, 2006, 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:
Kyle wrote: Hey if wikipedia has it, its gotta be true. Gonna start building my bomb shelter for 2015. Not once did they say it's true.

Author:	Alex 43 [ October 30th, 2006, 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: When asked about the mechanisms of the time traveling, Titor replied that he was no engineer. When asked to provide a better picture of his time machine he replied that he wasn't a photographer. That one threw me off. Why in Saradomin's name would someone from the year 2036 send somebody who had no engineering ability or a decent blueprint of the machine back in time with the risk that the time machine may break and destroy their research plan completely? If it broke, he would have no way to fix it without the knowledge. Not to mention the fact that if he couldn't return, sooner or later we would get our hands on this technology and time-travelling would be do-able in the nearer future? Fake, boys. Pure fake.

Author:	Brandt [ October 30th, 2006, 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:
†rivium-x wrote: Many people that go into space for a long period of time, come down with less signes of aging as the people on earth of the same age. So i suppose thats kind of timetravel? NO, its not time travel. Anyway, according to special relativity and quatum theories, the faster towards the speed of light, the mroe mass an object gains, thus at the speed of light an object would have a mass of infinity, which is why only photons can travel that fast being massless. Anyway, according to those theories, to travel back in time, one would need to go FASTER then the speed of light, which is impossible due to the infinite mass. I could go on, but wat that is is solely time dilation, NOT time travel

Author:	Alex 43 [ October 31st, 2006, 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Brandt, that's only a theory. You said so yourself. A long time ago, the theory was that all the planets and the sun orbited the Earth. It was a theory that hot oil would instantly cure a wound. It was a theory that only God could save someone's soul from corruption and the Egyptians coated all their dead in bandages and masks. Just because it's a theory doesn't make it reality. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying that there's room for interpretion. Plus, if something travelled faster then the speed of light, the time elapsed in the event would be so minimal that the gravity of the mass wouldn't make any difference. And with infinate mass, are we saying that there even IS gravity in this void to make a difference?

Author:	Hairy Munky [ October 31st, 2006, 12:55 pm ]
Post subject:
1) You guys are too clever. 2) No he didn't time travel 'cause I said so. End of duscussion.

Author:	MattVortex [ October 31st, 2006, 1:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Scientists put atomic clocks on space rockets to see if relativity was true, and found there is some empirical proof for it. They put one atomic clock on the ground, one on the rocket, set to exactly the same time, then launched the rocket. Because it was travelling so fast, time inside the clock slowed down, only by a bit, but when they came back down to earth, the clock in the rocket was 6 seconds behind the clock on earth.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 7 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Hairy Munky [ October 31st, 2006, 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:
MasterOfTheVortex wrote: Scientists put atomic clocks on space rockets to see if relativity was true, and found there is some empirical proof for it. They put one atomic clock on the ground, one on the rocket, set to exactly the same time, then launched the rocket. Because it was travelling so fast, time inside the clock slowed down, only by a bit, but when they came back down to earth, the clock in the rocket was 6 seconds behind the clock on earth. Didn't they put one atomic clock on the ground and one on a tower and left it for a week and the clock on the tower was slightly slower than the one on the ground?

Author:	Brandt [ October 31st, 2006, 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Hairy munky wrote: MasterOfTheVortex wrote: Scientists put atomic clocks on space rockets to see if relativity was true, and found there is some empirical proof for it. They put one atomic clock on the ground, one on the rocket, set to exactly the same time, then launched the rocket. Because it was travelling so fast, time inside the clock slowed down, only by a bit, but when they came back down to earth, the clock in the rocket was 6 seconds behind the clock on earth. Didn't they put one atomic clock on the ground and one on a tower and left it for a week and the clock on the tower was slightly slower than the one on the ground? not that im away of...anyways, Light does not attract gravity. Also, Scientists have been able to get molecules CLOSE to the speed of light, but it impossible to reach an infinite mass, therefore impossible to reach the speed of light as anything but a photon or any other subatomic particle with a mass, or even get faster. As far as scientists are away, no particles can travel faster then the speed of light. When you take a look at the forumla for time dialation (which does work, its been proven, given by Albert Einstien) and u put in a speed faster then the speed of light, here is your result (the time dialation effect): here is the work for exactly C and C+1: For exactly C (1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-(299,792,458^2/299,792,458^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-1)) = (1/sqrt(0)) = 1/0 = no real answer (divide by zero) For C+1 (1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-(299,792,459^2/299,792,458^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-1.000000006713)) = (1/sqrt(-6.67`310^(-9))) = no real answer (negative radical)[/u] So, as you can see here, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to travel more then the speed of light due to the fact that the mass contraction of any object travelling a speed is Mf= Mi(t1) where t1 is the time dialation calculation, so you can see that Mf = M*t1, but, since t1 is a non-real answer, it would then create a non-real answer, making it an impossible mass

Author:	Hairy Munky [ November 1st, 2006, 1:36 am ]
Post subject:
Brandt wrote: Also, Scientists have been able to get molecules CLOSE to the speed of light, but it impossible to reach an infinite mass, therefore impossible to reach the speed of light as anything but a photon or any other subatomic particle with a mass, or even get faster. As far as scientists are away, no particles can travel faster then the speed of light. When you take a look at the forumla for time dialation (which does work, its been proven, given by Albert Einstien) and u put in a speed faster then the speed of light, here is your result (the time dialation effect): here is the work for exactly C and C+1: For exactly C (1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-(299,792,458^2/299,792,458^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-1)) = (1/sqrt(0)) = 1/0 = no real answer (divide by zero) For C+1 (1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-(299,792,459^2/299,792,458^2))) = (1/sqrt(1-1.000000006713)) = (1/sqrt(-6.67`310^(-9))) = no real answer (negative radical)[/u] So, as you can see here, that it is IMPOSSIBLE to travel more then the speed of light due to the fact that the mass contraction of any object travelling a speed is Mf= Mi(t1) where t1 is the time dialation calculation, so you can see that Mf = M*t1, but, since t1 is a non-real answer, it would then create a non-real answer, making it an impossible mass Hairy munky wrote: 1) You guys are too clever.